From avri Tue Oct 2 19:52:56 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:52:56 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NPOC comment on the NCSG IFRC/IOC comments Message-ID: For several weeks, at various times, the NCSG position on the IFRC/IOC resolution was discussed in the NCSG Policy Committee list. NPOC has three members on this committee, 2 appointed representatives and the chair of the NPOC, which I beleive is Alain himself. This committee gave its approval to the NCSG comments per the NCSG Charter. NPOC could have objected at any point in that process. They did not. The Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee declared the decision of the Policy Committee, which according to charter does not need to be unanimous, though in this case it apparently was. I do not know what the NPOC did internally in its discussions, or whether the representatives of the NPOC on the NCSG Policy Committee where tracking this with their members internal structures, but to now say that you were excluded from the decision is just not an accurate reflection of the case within the NCSG or the NCSG Policy Committee. The NCSG postion listed in the document is the NCSG position as developed in its Policy Committee according to its charter. From avri Tue Oct 2 20:08:38 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:08:38 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NPOC comment on the NCSG IFRC/IOC comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <155E2D77-EAE3-4C69-ACE5-57C26EEC21B7@acm.org> Should have included this reference: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/msg00000.html On 2 Oct 2012, at 12:52, Avri Doria wrote: > > > For several weeks, at various times, the NCSG position on the IFRC/IOC resolution was discussed in the NCSG Policy Committee list. > > NPOC has three members on this committee, 2 appointed representatives and the chair of the NPOC, which I beleive is Alain himself. > > This committee gave its approval to the NCSG comments per the NCSG Charter. > > NPOC could have objected at any point in that process. They did not. > > The Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee declared the decision of the Policy Committee, which according to charter does not need to be unanimous, though in this case it apparently was. > > I do not know what the NPOC did internally in its discussions, or whether the representatives of the NPOC on the NCSG Policy Committee where tracking this with their members internal structures, but to now say that you were excluded from the decision is just not an accurate reflection of the case within the NCSG or the NCSG Policy Committee. > > The NCSG postion listed in the document is the NCSG position as developed in its Policy Committee according to its charter. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Tue Oct 2 20:27:52 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:27:52 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NPOC comment on the NCSG IFRC/IOC comments In-Reply-To: <155E2D77-EAE3-4C69-ACE5-57C26EEC21B7@acm.org> References: <155E2D77-EAE3-4C69-ACE5-57C26EEC21B7@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks for sending this Avri. Unfortunately there still seems to be some misunderstanding as to how decisions of the NCSG Policy Committee are made, although I know I have explained this very same point before. I will try again. The NCSG Charter sets forth the process of decisions taken by the NCSG Policy Committee. It is by members of the NCSG Policy Committee (which include representatives of all constituencies). It is *not* the case that constituencies within NCSG must agree on a position for it to be the view of the NCSG Policy Committee. Nor is it the case that 100% of the NCSG Policy Committee members must agree on a position - although I will note in this case no member of the NCSG Policy Committee expressed disagreement with the proposed position of the NCSG PC - so that isn't even an issue. The fact remains that this NCSG position was proposed to the NCSG Policy Committee, which include members of NPOC, and discussions of the proposal took place with 100% agreement to support this position. For anyone to come back now and say NCSG policy committee did not support this position because 1 member of the PC who did not speak up at the time doesn't like it, is simply wrong, and needs to review the NCSG Charter to review how decisions of the PC are taken. I hope I do not have to continue to repeat this explanation every time the NCSG PC takes a decision. We follow the NCSG Charter. That is all. Best, Robin On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Should have included this reference: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/msg00000.html > > > On 2 Oct 2012, at 12:52, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> For several weeks, at various times, the NCSG position on the IFRC/ >> IOC resolution was discussed in the NCSG Policy Committee list. >> >> NPOC has three members on this committee, 2 appointed >> representatives and the chair of the NPOC, which I beleive is >> Alain himself. >> >> This committee gave its approval to the NCSG comments per the NCSG >> Charter. >> >> NPOC could have objected at any point in that process. They did not. >> >> The Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee declared the decision of >> the Policy Committee, which according to charter does not need to >> be unanimous, though in this case it apparently was. >> >> I do not know what the NPOC did internally in its discussions, or >> whether the representatives of the NPOC on the NCSG Policy >> Committee where tracking this with their members internal >> structures, but to now say that you were excluded from the >> decision is just not an accurate reflection of the case within the >> NCSG or the NCSG Policy Committee. >> >> The NCSG postion listed in the document is the NCSG position as >> developed in its Policy Committee according to its charter. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 2 21:46:48 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:46:48 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NPOC comment on the NCSG IFRC/IOC comments In-Reply-To: References: <155E2D77-EAE3-4C69-ACE5-57C26EEC21B7@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri: Please feel free to forward my email confirmation on to the IOC/RC group since I don't have posting privileges on that list. Thank you, Robin Gross On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks for sending this Avri. > > Unfortunately there still seems to be some misunderstanding as to > how decisions of the NCSG Policy Committee are made, although I > know I have explained this very same point before. I will try again. > > The NCSG Charter sets forth the process of decisions taken by the > NCSG Policy Committee. It is by members of the NCSG Policy > Committee (which include representatives of all constituencies). > It is *not* the case that constituencies within NCSG must agree on > a position for it to be the view of the NCSG Policy Committee. Nor > is it the case that 100% of the NCSG Policy Committee members must > agree on a position - although I will note in this case no member > of the NCSG Policy Committee expressed disagreement with the > proposed position of the NCSG PC - so that isn't even an issue. > > The fact remains that this NCSG position was proposed to the NCSG > Policy Committee, which include members of NPOC, and discussions of > the proposal took place with 100% agreement to support this position. > > For anyone to come back now and say NCSG policy committee did not > support this position because 1 member of the PC who did not speak > up at the time doesn't like it, is simply wrong, and needs to > review the NCSG Charter to review how decisions of the PC are > taken. I hope I do not have to continue to repeat this explanation > every time the NCSG PC takes a decision. We follow the NCSG > Charter. That is all. > > Best, > Robin > > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Should have included this reference: >> >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/msg00000.html >> >> >> On 2 Oct 2012, at 12:52, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> For several weeks, at various times, the NCSG position on the >>> IFRC/IOC resolution was discussed in the NCSG Policy Committee list. >>> >>> NPOC has three members on this committee, 2 appointed >>> representatives and the chair of the NPOC, which I beleive is >>> Alain himself. >>> >>> This committee gave its approval to the NCSG comments per the >>> NCSG Charter. >>> >>> NPOC could have objected at any point in that process. They did >>> not. >>> >>> The Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee declared the decision of >>> the Policy Committee, which according to charter does not need to >>> be unanimous, though in this case it apparently was. >>> >>> I do not know what the NPOC did internally in its discussions, or >>> whether the representatives of the NPOC on the NCSG Policy >>> Committee where tracking this with their members internal >>> structures, but to now say that you were excluded from the >>> decision is just not an accurate reflection of the case within >>> the NCSG or the NCSG Policy Committee. >>> >>> The NCSG postion listed in the document is the NCSG position as >>> developed in its Policy Committee according to its charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Tue Oct 2 22:12:39 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:12:39 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NPOC comment on the NCSG IFRC/IOC comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9A4E85-399D-4EC5-96AB-6CF2E71D7A0C@uzh.ch> Where does one see the comments referred to in the subject line? On Oct 2, 2012, at 18:52, Avri Doria wrote: > > > For several weeks, at various times, the NCSG position on the IFRC/IOC resolution was discussed in the NCSG Policy Committee list. > > NPOC has three members on this committee, 2 appointed representatives and the chair of the NPOC, which I beleive is Alain himself. > > This committee gave its approval to the NCSG comments per the NCSG Charter. > > NPOC could have objected at any point in that process. They did not. > > The Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee declared the decision of the Policy Committee, which according to charter does not need to be unanimous, though in this case it apparently was. > > I do not know what the NPOC did internally in its discussions, or whether the representatives of the NPOC on the NCSG Policy Committee where tracking this with their members internal structures, but to now say that you were excluded from the decision is just not an accurate reflection of the case within the NCSG or the NCSG Policy Committee. > > The NCSG postion listed in the document is the NCSG position as developed in its Policy Committee according to its charter. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Sat Oct 6 02:47:19 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:47:19 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agenda for Monday 15 October NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Toronto & participation details Message-ID: <28AF5E36-10B2-4C21-99CE-3D0EB11E417B@ipjustice.org> Dear NCSG-PC Members: Below is the draft discussion agenda for our meeting Monday morning in Toronto. I was somewhat of a disadvantage in preparing it because the agendas are not yet posted for the GNSO Council meeting on 17 October, nor are the discussion topics for the Public Forum posted. So I'll probably have to make some adjustments when I see exactly what motions are on the table for the GNSO Council and what discussion topics for Public Forum will be. Please send any comments or suggestions. Thanks, Robin ------------------------------------------------ NCSG Policy Committee Meeting Monday 15 October 2012 9:00 - 11:00 EST Westin Room: Queen's Quay 1 Who should attend: All members of the NCSG Policy Committee, including the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors and the constituency representatives to the NCSG-PC. The in-coming NCSG GNSO Councilors and the chairs of the constituencies within NCSG should also attend. The meeting is open to all members of the NCSG to attend. Remote participation details below. DRAFT DISCUSSION AGENDA A. Policy Issues: 1. RAA Negotiations (30 min) a. Update on negotiations b. Next Steps after Article 29 WP Letter? 2. IPR Issues & New gtlds (25 min) a. Universal Rapid Suspension (URS) b. Trademark Clearinghouse c. Outside proposals to expand rights d. NCSG responses? e. TMC Public Comment Closes 7 November 3. Special rights for Olympic Cmtes, Red Cross, and Inter- Governmental Organizations (30 min) a. DT Report & NCSG statement b. GNSO Council Action? c. Issues of 1st vs 2nd level rights d. Issues of which, if any, orgs should be granted special privileges? e. Unintended consequences or impact on special privileges in DNS f. Public Comment Comment Close: 19 October // Reply Close: 9 November 4. Whois (5 min) a. Thick whois PDP / studies / RT recommendations 5. New gtlds & free expression concerns (5 min) a. "Sensitivities" & controversial domain names 6. Possible GNSO Council Motions on PDP RE: uniformity of contract to address registration abuse & uniformity of reporting? (5 min) 7. Consumer Metrics (5 min) 8. ATRT work (5 min) B. PC Admin Issues: 1. GNSO Chair Election (5 min) 2. GNSO Vice-Chair Election (5 min) 3. Reminder: NCSG- PC terms end at conclusion of Annual Meeting (Toronto), Constituencies should each make new 2 appointments asap. 4. AOB Reservation Title: NCSG Policy Committee [C] Location: Queen's Quay 1 Date and Time Information Monday, 15 October 2012 from 09:00 until 11:00 Canada Ontario Ottawa Adobe Connect Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Dial-in numbers below: Participant passcode: NCSGPC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ________________________________________________________________________ ____ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat Oct 6 04:39:15 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:39:15 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions References: Message-ID: Any opinions on this resolution in the standing committee? thanks avri BTW, I have been the NCSG rep in the SCI for 2 years now. Probably time to replace me. Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions > Date: 27 September 2012 03:59:05 EDT > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Dear All, > > In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on today's SCI meeting. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Deferral of motions ? Proposed Response > > The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat Oct 6 04:41:17 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:41:17 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options References: Message-ID: guidance on this one welcome too. i tend toward the status quo. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options > Date: 24 September 2012 06:32:13 EDT > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Dear All, > > In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been sufficiently clarified', three possible approaches were identified during the last meeting: > Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. > Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct request to the SCI ? this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. > Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct request to the SCI ? this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered. > Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue ahead of the next meeting. > > With best regards, > > Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Sat Oct 6 14:19:23 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:19:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507013BB.9060206@seltzer.com> On 10/05/2012 09:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Any opinions on this resolution in the standing committee? It sounds wrong to me, and does nothing to address the reasons the issue was brought up in the first place. I'd say either we formalize deferral practices or say nothing at all. Putting it more squarely in the chair's discretion is unhelpful. Thanks for the report! --Wendy > > thanks > > avri > > BTW, I have been the NCSG rep in the SCI for 2 years now. Probably time to replace me. > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Marika Konings >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions >> Date: 27 September 2012 03:59:05 EDT >> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> >> Dear All, >> >> In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on today's SCI meeting. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> Deferral of motions ? Proposed Response >> >> The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the d iscretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From rafik.dammak Tue Oct 9 14:47:15 2012 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:47:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi avri, +1 for keeping the statu quo, I think that gnso spend (too much time) in operational and procedural side. Rafik On Oct 6, 2012 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > guidance on this one welcome too. > > i tend toward the status quo. > > avri > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Marika Konings > *Subject: **[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue > options* > *Date: *24 September 2012 06:32:13 EDT > *To: *"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Dear All, > > In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been > sufficiently clarified', three possible approaches were identified during > the last meeting: > > 1. *Maintain status quo* - which means only the GNSO Council or a > group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by > the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, > that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that > they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group > chartered by the GNSO Council. > 2. *Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct > request to the SCI *? this would require a change to the SCI Charter > and would need GNSO Council approval. > 3. *Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct > request to the SCI* ? this would require a change to the SCI Charter > and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of > 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered. > > Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or > identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue > ahead of the next meeting. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 9 20:58:29 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:58:29 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <578A8824-A2CC-48FC-95A5-B76CE04AF865@ipjustice.org> I agree. Option 1 is my preference also. Thanks, Robin On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi avri, > > +1 for keeping the statu quo, I think that gnso spend (too much > time) in operational and procedural side. > > Rafik > > On Oct 6, 2012 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > guidance on this one welcome too. > > i tend toward the status quo. > > avri > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Marika Konings >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an >> issue options >> Date: 24 September 2012 06:32:13 EDT >> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > sc at icann.org> >> >> Dear All, >> >> In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been >> sufficiently clarified', three possible approaches were identified >> during the last meeting: >> Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or a group >> chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed >> by the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / >> individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see >> reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to channel these via the >> GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. >> Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct >> request to the SCI ? this would require a change to the SCI >> Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. >> Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct >> request to the SCI ? this would require a change to the SCI >> Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that >> a definition of 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear >> whether SO/ACs are chartered. >> Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options >> and/or identify any other options that should be considered to >> address this issue ahead of the next meeting. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Oct 9 22:58:46 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:58:46 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] [] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report References: Message-ID: FYI g-council members and PC members. this one is done and now on the g-council's plate. my personal recommendation is that there is nothing in there that is bad for NC registrants. in fact some of the protection implicit in the new change of registrant process add security against the highjacking of names. I think the motion is going to be made by someone in the RrSG (SG of one of the co-chairs) If anyone of the NCSG is willing to second (SG of the other co-chair) that would be appreciated. Note: while i think it can still be done more quickly. This fairly complex PDP was done in a year. We met weekly and had several subgroups that also met weekly. But we wee intentional about it and I think showed that it can be done. I think with this sort of a focus a single issue PDP could come in closer to the 6.5 month minimum. thanks avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Subject: [gnso-irtpc] FW: [council] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report > Date: 9 October 2012 14:48:57 EDT > To: "gnso-irtpc at icann.org" > > FYI ? thank you all for your hard work. Looking forward to seeing you in Toronto and/or the next IRTP Working Group! > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Marika Konings > Date: Tuesday 9 October 2012 20:44 > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > Subject: [council] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report > > Dear All, > > On behalf of the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group, please find attached the WG's Final Report for your review and consideration. > > Also attached for your consideration is a draft motion to approve the Final Report and its recommendations, as well as requesting an Issue Report on the next IRTP PDP. > > With best regards, > > Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP Part C Final Report - FINAL - 9 October 2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2019927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations - 9 October 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 9 23:16:11 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:16:11 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] [] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Avri. Great work well done! Best, Robin On Oct 9, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > FYI g-council members and PC members. > > this one is done and now on the g-council's plate. > my personal recommendation is that there is nothing in there that > is bad for NC registrants. > in fact some of the protection implicit in the new change of > registrant process add security against the highjacking of names. > > I think the motion is going to be made by someone in the RrSG (SG > of one of the co-chairs) > If anyone of the NCSG is willing to second (SG of the other co- > chair) that would be appreciated. > > Note: while i think it can still be done more quickly. This fairly > complex PDP was done in a year. > We met weekly and had several subgroups that also met weekly. > But we wee intentional about it and I think showed that it can be > done. > I think with this sort of a focus a single issue PDP could come in > closer to the 6.5 month minimum. > > thanks > > avri > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Marika Konings >> Subject: [gnso-irtpc] FW: [council] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report >> Date: 9 October 2012 14:48:57 EDT >> To: "gnso-irtpc at icann.org" >> >> FYI ? thank you all for your hard work. Looking forward to seeing >> you in Toronto and/or the next IRTP Working Group! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> From: Marika Konings >> Date: Tuesday 9 October 2012 20:44 >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" >> Subject: [council] IRTP Part C PDP Final Report >> >> Dear All, >> >> On behalf of the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group, please find >> attached the WG's Final Report for your review and consideration. >> >> Also attached for your consideration is a draft motion to approve >> the Final Report and its recommendations, as well as requesting an >> Issue Report on the next IRTP PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika > > Recommendations - 9 October 2012.doc> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Oct 10 05:27:55 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 22:27:55 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Final Charter References: Message-ID: <7986C37B-2071-4FC1-987D-F40A9FEA3ADE@acm.org> Hi, this is the product of the DT. I unfortunately missed the last meeting. NO excuse, just missed it. So I have an issue I am passing on to the g-council members who have to vote on it sooner or later. The first two work items in the mission seem more like declarations than questions to be dealt with by the WG. It might be worth tweaking them into questions. I tried to get more rights impact analysis into the charter but failed. At least there is privacy. But if the rest of you can figure out how to get more rights impact analysis in, that would seem to be a good thing. There really seems to be an aversion to rights talk, other than property rights, among the people of ICANN. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter > Date: 8 October 2012 15:08:29 EDT > To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org" > > Dear All, > > For your information, please find attached the final version of the proposed charter which will be submitted to the GNSO Council as per the DT's meeting today. > > With best regards, > > Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thick Whois Charter - Final - 8 October 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 107008 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Oct 10 22:14:16 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:14:16 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Final Charter In-Reply-To: <7986C37B-2071-4FC1-987D-F40A9FEA3ADE@acm.org> References: <7986C37B-2071-4FC1-987D-F40A9FEA3ADE@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you, Avri. We very much appreciate your work on this and especially fighting for users' rights, which is an issue oft marginalized by the corporate nature of ICANN. Robin On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > this is the product of the DT. > > I unfortunately missed the last meeting. NO excuse, just missed it. > > So I have an issue I am passing on to the g-council members who > have to vote on it sooner or later. > > The first two work items in the mission seem more like declarations > than questions to be dealt with by the WG. It might be worth > tweaking them into questions. > > I tried to get more rights impact analysis into the charter but > failed. At least there is privacy. But if the rest of you can > figure out how to get more rights impact analysis in, that would > seem to be a good thing. There really seems to be an aversion to > rights talk, other than property rights, among the people of ICANN. > > avri > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Marika Konings >> Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Final Charter >> Date: 8 October 2012 15:08:29 EDT >> To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org" >> >> Dear All, >> >> For your information, please find attached the final version of >> the proposed charter which will be submitted to the GNSO Council >> as per the DT's meeting today. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Oct 12 01:25:03 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:25:03 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Policy Committee meeting Toronto 2012 dial-in details monday 15 oct 9-11am est References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: October 11, 2012 11:12:06 AM PDT > To: Robin Gross , "David Cake > (dave at difference.com.au) (dave at difference.com.au)" > , "Joy Liddicoat (joy at apc.org)" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: NCSG Private meetings Toronto 2012 > > > NCSG Private meeting in Toronto ? only telephone bridge. > Room: QUEEN'S QUAY 1 > Monday 15 October 2012 > 09:00 ? 11:00 (CEST local time) > For the time in other places, click on: > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG > +private+meeting&iso=20121015T09&p1=250 > Meeting View Leader Access so that you can see who is on the call: > To join the event: > > URL: > https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com > Conference Number: > > 6378217 > > > Open the url above, type in your name and add the conference number > and this gives you the interface with the operator on the call > should you need them for any reason, and you can see who has dialed > in or request dial-outs. > Password: NCSGPC > > Dial in numbers: > Country > > Toll Numbers > Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > ARGENTINA > > > 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA > ADELAIDE: > 61-8-8121-4842 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > BRISBANE: > 61-7-3102-0944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > CANBERRA: > 61-2-6100-1944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > MELBOURNE: > 61-3-9010-7713 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > PERTH: > 61-8-9467-5223 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA > SYDNEY: > 61-2-8205-8129 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA > > 43-1-92-81-113 > 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM > > 32-2-400-9861 > 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL > > > 0800-7610651 > CHILE > > > 1230-020-2863 > CHINA > CHINA A: > 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-712-1670 > CHINA > CHINA B: > 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA > > > 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > 800-700-177 > DENMARK > > 45-7014-0284 > 8088-8324 > ESTONIA > > > 800-011-1093 > FINLAND > Land Line: > 106-33-203 > 0-800-9-14610 > FINLAND > Mobile: > 09-106-33-203 > 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE > LYON: > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE > MARSEILLE: > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE > PARIS: > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > 080-511-1496 > GERMANY > > 49-69-2222-20362 > 0800-664-4247 > GREECE > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG > > 852-3001-3863 > 800-962-856 > HUNGARY > > > 06-800-12755 > INDIA > INDIA A: > > 000-800-852-1268 > INDIA > INDIA B: > > 000-800-001-6305 > INDIA > INDIA C: > > 1800-300-00491 > INDONESIA > > > 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND > > 353-1-246-7646 > 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL > > > 1-80-9216162 > ITALY > > 39-02-3600-6007 > 800-986-383 > JAPAN > OSAKA: > 81-6-7739-4799 > 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN > TOKYO: > 81-3-5539-5191 > 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA > > > 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG > > 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA > > > 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO > > > 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS > > 31-20-718-8588 > 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND > > 64-9-970-4771 > 0800-447-722 > NORWAY > > 47-21-590-062 > 800-15157 > PANAMA > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU > > > 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES > > 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND > > > 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL > > > 8008-14052 > RUSSIA > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > SAUDI ARABIA > > > 800-8-110087 > SINGAPORE > > 65-6883-9230 > 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA > > > 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA > > 82-2-6744-1083 > 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN > > 34-91-414-25-33 > 800-300-053 > SWEDEN > > 46-8-566-19-348 > 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND > > 41-44-580-6398 > 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN > > 886-2-2795-7379 > 00801-137-797 > THAILAND > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM > BIRMINGHAM: > 44-121-210-9025 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > GLASGOW: > 44-141-202-3225 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > LEEDS: > 44-113-301-2125 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > LONDON: > 44-20-7108-6370 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM > MANCHESTER: > 44-161-601-1425 > 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY > > > 000-413-598-3421 > USA > > 1-517-345-9004 > 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > Kind regards, > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Oct 16 01:31:40 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:31:40 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" References: <3B84ADA6-42A8-4F1B-9903-365C25D7C882@acm.org> Message-ID: <3FF23733-C81C-4195-816C-92EBD0A31953@acm.org> I sent this on request from Mikey. Hope you guys can support it. avri ----- Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" > Date: 15 October 2012 13:29:43 EDT > To: "Mike O'Connor" > Cc: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org DT" > > > > > Hi, > > How about this as a next pass > > On 15 Oct 2012, at 08:49, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois affect rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? >> > > > Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois specifically affect internationally agreed rights, e.g. rights of others, privacy, freedoms such as expression and association, as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > This is the latest compromise language i offered on Mikey's request, see below. Hopefully it is language you all can support. thanks avri Begin forwarded message: > From: "Mike O'Connor" > Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" > Date: 15 October 2012 08:49:47 EDT > To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org DT" > > hi all, > > i have been quiet, but i'm far from disinterested and commend the conversation. > > here are a couple ideas to keep the conversation moving. > > - i think it would be helpful if *we* could arrive at a mutually-agreeable place in advance of the Council meeting on Wednesday > > - i'd ask us to focus on the actual wording to see if there's a middle ground > > i think the key for us is to craft a "container" within which the rights discussion can take place in the WG, rather than viewing this as a conversation about whether that discussion should take place at all. i'm thinking that the conversation will happen during the WG, no matter what we as a drafting team (or the Council for that matter) do. > > Avri, i'd like to throw the ball back to you. the first-round amended language doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction. would you like to take a run at synthesizing the comments on this thread into a revised version of the language that would still meet your objectives? > > thanks, > > mikey > > > Current language: > > Impact on privacy and data protection: how would ?thick? Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > 1st- round proposed language: > > Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois affect rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > From Mary.Wong Tue Oct 16 01:41:12 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:41:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" In-Reply-To: <3FF23733-C81C-4195-816C-92EBD0A31953@acm.org> References: <3B84ADA6-42A8-4F1B-9903-365C25D7C882@acm.org> <3FF23733-C81C-4195-816C-92EBD0A31953@acm.org> Message-ID: <507C58C80200005B0009912B@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi Avri - I can't quite tell which is Mikey's compromise version, but if we can make people understand that "such as" is illustrative, and that what's being covered is not the kitchen sink but rather the fundamental human rights internationally agreed upon and as protected by international treaties I hope that will work. Thanks for taking this on. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Avri Doria To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/15/2012 6:32 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" I sent this on request from Mikey. Hope you guys can support it. avri ----- Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" > Date: 15 October 2012 13:29:43 EDT > To: "Mike O'Connor" > Cc: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org DT" > > > > > Hi, > > How about this as a next pass > > On 15 Oct 2012, at 08:49, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois affect rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? >> > > > Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois specifically affect internationally agreed rights, e.g. rights of others, privacy, freedoms such as expression and association, as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > This is the latest compromise language i offered on Mikey's request, see below. Hopefully it is language you all can support. thanks avri Begin forwarded message: > From: "Mike O'Connor" > Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" > Date: 15 October 2012 08:49:47 EDT > To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org DT" > > hi all, > > i have been quiet, but i'm far from disinterested and commend the conversation. > > here are a couple ideas to keep the conversation moving. > > - i think it would be helpful if *we* could arrive at a mutually-agreeable place in advance of the Council meeting on Wednesday > > - i'd ask us to focus on the actual wording to see if there's a middle ground > > i think the key for us is to craft a "container" within which the rights discussion can take place in the WG, rather than viewing this as a conversation about whether that discussion should take place at all. i'm thinking that the conversation will happen during the WG, no matter what we as a drafting team (or the Council for that matter) do. > > Avri, i'd like to throw the ball back to you. the first-round amended language doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction. would you like to take a run at synthesizing the comments on this thread into a revised version of the language that would still meet your objectives? > > thanks, > > mikey > > > Current language: > > Impact on privacy and data protection: how would ?thick? Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > 1st- round proposed language: > > Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois affect rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Oct 17 16:13:05 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:13:05 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection" In-Reply-To: <507C58C80200005B0009912B@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <3B84ADA6-42A8-4F1B-9903-365C25D7C882@acm.org> <3FF23733-C81C-4195-816C-92EBD0A31953@acm.org> <507C58C80200005B0009912B@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I look like I lost the attempt to get freedom of expression and association mention in the charter. It was called scope creep. This was my compromise proposal after a few iterations > Impact on rights: how would ?thick? Whois specifically affect internationally agreed rights, e.g. rights of others, privacy, freedoms such as expression and association, as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? As I said, it was not accepted because it was considered scope creep. So the g-council will get the version with the following language: > Impact on privacy and data protection: how would ?thick? Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? I hope the NCSG council members make this an issue in today's meeting. And that even if they vote in the positive for the charter, they make voting statement decrying the fear and avoidance of the GNSO on measuring the impact of our actions on human rights. One skirmish in the attempt to get ICANN to pay attention to its impact on Human Rights is lost. Next? avri From william.drake Wed Oct 17 19:45:00 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:45:00 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS Message-ID: So, maybe we should talk about what we intend to do on these? Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC): Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Carlos Aguirre Wendy expresses her concerns, and then we vote?.what? 2. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Made by: Zahid Jamil If I recall correctly, sounded like Jeff and registries not excited about this, saw as redundant and unnecessary. May be deferred, can't recall. If not, no? 3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben a priori an IR seems ok, unless we don't like the terms or want to amend?? 4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: Mary Wong Were we proposing any friendlies, I forgot 5. Motion to approve the Charter for the ?thick? Whois PDP Working Group Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: St?phane van Gelder We raise Avri's concerns about the rejected HR language, and then?? 6. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations Made by: St?phane van Gelder, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Amended by: Mary Wong (in bold) Yes 7. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report Made by: Ching Chiao, Seconded by:Rafik Dammak Yes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Wed Oct 17 19:53:23 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:53:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507EAA430200005B000993F3@smtp.law.unh.edu> My responses below. Going to ccNSO lunch now - see you all in a bit. Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/17/2012 12:45 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS So, maybe we should talk about what we intend to do on these? Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC): Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Carlos Aguirre Wendy expresses her concerns, and then we vote?.what? [MARY] I'm supposed to come up with more conciliatory language on Resolved #1. We can propose striking it altogether - which will not be taken as friendly - and/or then propose changing "endorse" to "acknowledge". If the "endorsed" language stays in I suppose we vote no - unless we don't mind sending on the letter to the Board, since it contains our minority statement. In that case we can ask to separate the Resolved clauses so that we vote No on #1 and Yes on #2. 2. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Made by: Zahid Jamil If I recall correctly, sounded like Jeff and registries not excited about this, saw as redundant and unnecessary. May be deferred, can't recall. If not, no? [MARY] Support deferral if someone asks, if not, No. 3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben a priori an IR seems ok, unless we don't like the terms or want to amend?? [MARY] Haven't followed this much. Concerned about workload so may depend on whether new Council and Staff can set timelines, priorities, etc. for all the Issue Reports and PDP stuff going on. Marika said one of these reports is pretty much done - could be this one - so in that case I don't really care. Yes? 4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: Mary Wong Were we proposing any friendlies, I forgot [MARY] No friendlies since NPOC said they're okay with the wording, so Yes. 5. Motion to approve the Charter for the ?thick? Whois PDP Working Group Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: St?phane van Gelder We raise Avri's concerns about the rejected HR language, and then?? [MARY] Yes, I think, AFTER expressing the concerns but only for the record, alas. 6. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations Made by: St?phane van Gelder, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Amended by: Mary Wong (in bold) Yes [MARY] Yes. 7. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report Made by: Ching Chiao, Seconded by:Rafik Dammak Yes [MARY] Yes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Wed Oct 17 20:12:33 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:12:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507EE701.3090805@seltzer.com> On 10/17/2012 12:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > So, maybe we should talk about what we intend to do on these? > > Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC): > Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Carlos Aguirre > > Wendy expresses her concerns, and then we vote?.what? I believe there will be a push to defer from Rys > > > 2. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse > Made by: Zahid Jamil > > If I recall correctly, sounded like Jeff and registries not excited about this, saw as redundant and unnecessary. May be deferred, can't recall. If not, no? > Vote NO It's a bad rec, supported by no one but BC > > 3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting > Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > a priori an IR seems ok, unless we don't like the terms or want to amend?? NO, why do an IR unless we want the Policy Dev > > > 4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: Mary Wong > > Were we proposing any friendlies, I forgot It's PDP time. > > > 5. Motion to approve the Charter for the ?thick? Whois PDP Working Group > Made by: Jeff Neuman, Seconded by: St?phane van Gelder > > We raise Avri's concerns about the rejected HR language, and then?? Vote no because it should wait for a purpose of WHOIS spec? > > > 6. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations > Made by: St?phane van Gelder, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Amended by: Mary Wong (in bold) > > Yes Yes. > > > 7. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report > Made by: Ching Chiao, Seconded by:Rafik Dammak > > Yes > Yes. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From william.drake Wed Oct 17 21:32:35 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:32:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS In-Reply-To: <507EE701.3090805@seltzer.com> References: <507EE701.3090805@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <5513F5C0-D903-44D8-81D4-ED9E19BF0AE0@uzh.ch> Thanks Wendy. I'm open to persuasion, but a few thoughts: On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> 3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting >> Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> >> a priori an IR seems ok, unless we don't like the terms or want to amend?? > > NO, why do an IR unless we want the Policy Dev *The one doesn't inevitably have to lead to the other, and in this case the motion states, "In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement." Until the issue's been mapped out and options set it's not always evident that the result of any PD that might ensue would be malicious from a public interest standpoint. *There's been a longish trail of steps leading to this that I don't recall we expressed strong oppo to, and Mikey and a lot of others are fairly invested in it. *We'll have just said no to Zahid's. So my question is, do we have any specific reason to suspect that an IR would put us on a train to somewhere unpleasant, based on the RAPWG Final Report and related? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Wed Oct 17 22:49:10 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:49:10 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TODAY'S MOTIONS In-Reply-To: <5513F5C0-D903-44D8-81D4-ED9E19BF0AE0@uzh.ch> References: <507EE701.3090805@seltzer.com> <5513F5C0-D903-44D8-81D4-ED9E19BF0AE0@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <507F0BB6.9040107@seltzer.com> On 10/17/2012 02:32 PM, William Drake wrote: > Thanks Wendy. I'm open to persuasion, but a few thoughts: Objection withdrawn. I was thinking of Uniformity of Contract, to which I object; Issue Report on Uniformity of *Reporting* is OK. Thanks, --Wendy > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >>> 3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting >>> Made by: John Berard, Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> >>> a priori an IR seems ok, unless we don't like the terms or want to amend?? >> >> NO, why do an IR unless we want the Policy Dev > > *The one doesn't inevitably have to lead to the other, and in this case the motion states, "In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement." > > Until the issue's been mapped out and options set it's not always evident that the result of any PD that might ensue would be malicious from a public interest standpoint. > > *There's been a longish trail of steps leading to this that I don't recall we expressed strong oppo to, and Mikey and a lot of others are fairly invested in it. > > *We'll have just said no to Zahid's. > > So my question is, do we have any specific reason to suspect that an IR would put us on a train to somewhere unpleasant, based on the RAPWG Final Report and related? > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From robin Wed Oct 17 23:35:17 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:35:17 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca) In-Reply-To: <507F1275.4020707@gih.com> References: <90e6ba614ef6419c2404cc442134@google.com> <2b7b78fb-407f-456c-b140-7acfcc7ca336@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> <507F1275.4020707@gih.com> Message-ID: I agree with ending the statement with "make no substantive changes". Also, let's add "and only" and "so far" as follows: >>> "ICANN's first and only choices so far of service providers." Thank you very much! This is a strong statement. Who from At-Large will present it with me during the forum - Olivier? Best, Robin On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Quick question: have any of you reached out to the individuals who > were > involved with this in the STI, whether BC or even contracted > parties? If > the URS was such a carefully crafted community-wide consensus, would > those other communities wish to support this statement? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 17/10/2012 15:19, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> Two comments, one trivial and the other less-so. >> >> In the middle of para 2, community-wide should be hyphenated. >> >> Perhaps more controversial, I would fee better with the last sentence >> saying "... make no substantive changes ...". >> >> I can accept the statement with that change, but would feel better >> with it. >> >> Alan >> >>> We would like to call the community's attention to the current >>> status >>> of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, or URS. >>> >>> As a method to protect brand owners and Internet users against clear >>> and obvious instances of domain abuse, the URS was a carefully >>> crafted community wide consensus. It involved many ICANN >>> constituencies and hard-won compromises that we can both support and >>> defend. >>> >>> Recently, attempts have been made to re-open URS policy because of >>> cost-related pushback from ICANN's first choices of service >>> providers. Our communities are concerned that important protections >>> to both users and brand owners could be negatively impacted in the >>> name of cost cutting. We ask ICANN to make every effort necessary to >>> seek providers capable of implementing the URS as it now exists, and >>> demand it make no changes to the URS without the same level of >>> cross-community support that led to the current consensus. >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 18 07:01:50 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:01:50 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca) References: <507F3D29.6010503@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <4F994150-7589-4C5D-9281-5DE0E4333347@ipjustice.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: Kathy Kleiman > Date: October 17, 2012 7:20:09 PM EDT > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: Robin Gross , Alan Greenberg , "Evan Leibovitch (Google Drive)" , NCSG-Policy , ICANN AtLarge Staff > Subject: Re: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) > > My belated "two thumbs up" of support!!! > Great and tx, > Kathy > > : >> Dear all, >> >> Ok -- after performing the changes on the Google drive, I have now "frozen" this text by transferring it to our WIKI on: >> https://community.icann.org/x/uYEoAg >> >> This has been added to the ALAC Wrap-Up Pt.1 agenda: >> https://community.icann.org/x/TxAQAg >> >> If this statement is acceptable to the ALAC, I will ask for a ratification vote to take place. >> Please let me know ASAP if there are still further amendments to make. >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 17/10/2012 16:35, Robin Gross wrote: >>> I agree with ending the statement with "make no substantive changes". >>> >>> Also, let's add "and only" and "so far" as follows: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> "ICANN's first and only choices so far of service providers." >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you very much! This is a strong statement. Who from At-Large will present it with me during the forum - Olivier? >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>> >>>> Quick question: have any of you reached out to the individuals who were >>>> involved with this in the STI, whether BC or even contracted parties? If >>>> the URS was such a carefully crafted community-wide consensus, would >>>> those other communities wish to support this statement? >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> Olivier >>>> >>>> On 17/10/2012 15:19, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>>>> Two comments, one trivial and the other less-so. >>>>> >>>>> In the middle of para 2, community-wide should be hyphenated. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps more controversial, I would fee better with the last sentence >>>>> saying "... make no substantive changes ...". >>>>> >>>>> I can accept the statement with that change, but would feel better >>>>> with it. >>>>> >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>>> We would like to call the community's attention to the current status >>>>>> of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, or URS. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a method to protect brand owners and Internet users against clear >>>>>> and obvious instances of domain abuse, the URS was a carefully >>>>>> crafted community wide consensus. It involved many ICANN >>>>>> constituencies and hard-won compromises that we can both support and >>>>>> defend. >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently, attempts have been made to re-open URS policy because of >>>>>> cost-related pushback from ICANN's first choices of service >>>>>> providers. Our communities are concerned that important protections >>>>>> to both users and brand owners could be negatively impacted in the >>>>>> name of cost cutting. We ask ICANN to make every effort necessary to >>>>>> seek providers capable of implementing the URS as it now exists, and >>>>>> demand it make no changes to the URS without the same level of >>>>>> cross-community support that led to the current consensus. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 18 07:29:07 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:29:07 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca) References: <4F994150-7589-4C5D-9281-5DE0E4333347@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <6B0FCFA6-4B3E-449D-BF3D-22EFD61C6DA0@ipjustice.org> If anyone on the PC has any objections to the joint ALAC/NCSG stmtnt, please let me know. Thank you, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Robin Gross > Date: October 17, 2012 9:01:50 PM PDT > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS > (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Kathy Kleiman >> Date: October 17, 2012 7:20:09 PM EDT >> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Cc: Robin Gross , Alan Greenberg >> , "Evan Leibovitch (Google Drive)" >> , NCSG-Policy , >> ICANN AtLarge Staff >> Subject: Re: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS >> (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) >> >> My belated "two thumbs up" of support!!! >> Great and tx, >> Kathy >> >> : >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Ok -- after performing the changes on the Google drive, I have >>> now "frozen" this text by transferring it to our WIKI on: >>> https://community.icann.org/x/uYEoAg >>> >>> This has been added to the ALAC Wrap-Up Pt.1 agenda: >>> https://community.icann.org/x/TxAQAg >>> >>> If this statement is acceptable to the ALAC, I will ask for a >>> ratification vote to take place. >>> Please let me know ASAP if there are still further amendments to >>> make. >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> On 17/10/2012 16:35, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> I agree with ending the statement with "make no substantive >>>> changes". >>>> >>>> Also, let's add "and only" and "so far" as follows: >>>> >>>>>>> "ICANN's first and only choices so far of service providers." >>>> >>>> Thank you very much! This is a strong statement. Who from At- >>>> Large will present it with me during the forum - Olivier? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>>> >>>>> Quick question: have any of you reached out to the individuals >>>>> who were >>>>> involved with this in the STI, whether BC or even contracted >>>>> parties? If >>>>> the URS was such a carefully crafted community-wide consensus, >>>>> would >>>>> those other communities wish to support this statement? >>>>> Kindest regards, >>>>> >>>>> Olivier >>>>> >>>>> On 17/10/2012 15:19, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>>>>> Two comments, one trivial and the other less-so. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the middle of para 2, community-wide should be hyphenated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps more controversial, I would fee better with the last >>>>>> sentence >>>>>> saying "... make no substantive changes ...". >>>>>> >>>>>> I can accept the statement with that change, but would feel >>>>>> better >>>>>> with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan >>>>>> >>>>>>> We would like to call the community's attention to the >>>>>>> current status >>>>>>> of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, or URS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a method to protect brand owners and Internet users >>>>>>> against clear >>>>>>> and obvious instances of domain abuse, the URS was a carefully >>>>>>> crafted community wide consensus. It involved many ICANN >>>>>>> constituencies and hard-won compromises that we can both >>>>>>> support and >>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recently, attempts have been made to re-open URS policy >>>>>>> because of >>>>>>> cost-related pushback from ICANN's first choices of service >>>>>>> providers. Our communities are concerned that important >>>>>>> protections >>>>>>> to both users and brand owners could be negatively impacted >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> name of cost cutting. We ask ICANN to make every effort >>>>>>> necessary to >>>>>>> seek providers capable of implementing the URS as it now >>>>>>> exists, and >>>>>>> demand it make no changes to the URS without the same level of >>>>>>> cross-community support that led to the current consensus. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP JUSTICE >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Oct 18 07:31:41 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:31:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca) In-Reply-To: <6B0FCFA6-4B3E-449D-BF3D-22EFD61C6DA0@ipjustice.org> References: <4F994150-7589-4C5D-9281-5DE0E4333347@ipjustice.org> <6B0FCFA6-4B3E-449D-BF3D-22EFD61C6DA0@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <507F4DED0200005B00099483@smtp.law.unh.edu> Great work, Robin, and nice job getting it done so quickly with ALAC and the strong personalities involved on this issue - thank you! Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/18/2012 12:29 AM Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) If anyone on the PC has any objections to the joint ALAC/NCSG stmtnt, please let me know. Thank you, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Robin Gross Date: October 17, 2012 9:01:50 PM PDT To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) Begin forwarded message: From: Kathy Kleiman Date: October 17, 2012 7:20:09 PM EDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Robin Gross , Alan Greenberg , "Evan Leibovitch (Google Drive)" , NCSG-Policy , ICANN AtLarge Staff Subject: Re: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) My belated "two thumbs up" of support!!! Great and tx, Kathy : Dear all, Ok -- after performing the changes on the Google drive, I have now "frozen" this text by transferring it to our WIKI on: https://community.icann.org/x/uYEoAg This has been added to the ALAC Wrap-Up Pt.1 agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/TxAQAg If this statement is acceptable to the ALAC, I will ask for a ratification vote to take place. Please let me know ASAP if there are still further amendments to make. Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/10/2012 16:35, Robin Gross wrote: I agree with ending the statement with "make no substantive changes". Also, let's add "and only" and "so far" as follows: "ICANN's first and only choices so far of service providers." Thank you very much! This is a strong statement. Who from At-Large will present it with me during the forum - Olivier? Best, Robin On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Quick question: have any of you reached out to the individuals who were involved with this in the STI, whether BC or even contracted parties? If the URS was such a carefully crafted community-wide consensus, would those other communities wish to support this statement? Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/10/2012 15:19, Alan Greenberg wrote: Two comments, one trivial and the other less-so. In the middle of para 2, community-wide should be hyphenated. Perhaps more controversial, I would fee better with the last sentence saying "... make no substantive changes ...". I can accept the statement with that change, but would feel better with it. Alan We would like to call the community's attention to the current status of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, or URS. As a method to protect brand owners and Internet users against clear and obvious instances of domain abuse, the URS was a carefully crafted community wide consensus. It involved many ICANN constituencies and hard-won compromises that we can both support and defend. Recently, attempts have been made to re-open URS policy because of cost-related pushback from ICANN's first choices of service providers. Our communities are concerned that important protections to both users and brand owners could be negatively impacted in the name of cost cutting. We ask ICANN to make every effort necessary to seek providers capable of implementing the URS as it now exists, and demand it make no changes to the URS without the same level of cross-community support that led to the current consensus. -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Oct 18 16:42:52 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:42:52 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca) In-Reply-To: <507F4DED0200005B00099483@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F994150-7589-4C5D-9281-5DE0E4333347@ipjustice.org> <6B0FCFA6-4B3E-449D-BF3D-22EFD61C6DA0@ipjustice.org> <507F4DED0200005B00099483@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <268D74C7-DADF-4B2B-9731-C7BC26DCF727@uzh.ch> Message is fine by me, thanks for doing Bill On Oct 18, 2012, at 12:31 AM, wrote: > Great work, Robin, and nice job getting it done so quickly with ALAC and the strong personalities involved on this issue - thank you! > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > From: > Robin Gross > To: > NCSG-Policy > Date: > 10/18/2012 12:29 AM > Subject: > [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) > If anyone on the PC has any objections to the joint ALAC/NCSG stmtnt, please let me know. > > Thank you, > Robin > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Robin Gross >> Date: October 17, 2012 9:01:50 PM PDT >> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Kathy Kleiman >>> Date: October 17, 2012 7:20:09 PM EDT >>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>> Cc: Robin Gross , Alan Greenberg , "Evan Leibovitch (Google Drive)" , NCSG-Policy , ICANN AtLarge Staff >>> Subject: Re: Joint ALAC/NCSG statement on the URS (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) >>> >> >>> My belated "two thumbs up" of support!!! >>> Great and tx, >>> Kathy >>> >>> : >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Ok -- after performing the changes on the Google drive, I have now "frozen" this text by transferring it to our WIKI on: >>>> https://community.icann.org/x/uYEoAg >>>> >>>> This has been added to the ALAC Wrap-Up Pt.1 agenda: >>>> https://community.icann.org/x/TxAQAg >>>> >>>> If this statement is acceptable to the ALAC, I will ask for a ratification vote to take place. >>>> Please let me know ASAP if there are still further amendments to make. >>>> >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> Olivier >>>> >>>> On 17/10/2012 16:35, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>> I agree with ending the statement with "make no substantive changes". >>>>> >>>>> Also, let's add "and only" and "so far" as follows: >>>>> >>>>>>>> "ICANN's first and only choices so far of service providers." >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much! This is a strong statement. Who from At-Large will present it with me during the forum - Olivier? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Quick question: have any of you reached out to the individuals who were >>>>>> involved with this in the STI, whether BC or even contracted parties? If >>>>>> the URS was such a carefully crafted community-wide consensus, would >>>>>> those other communities wish to support this statement? >>>>>> Kindest regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Olivier >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/10/2012 15:19, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>>>>>> Two comments, one trivial and the other less-so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the middle of para 2, community-wide should be hyphenated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps more controversial, I would fee better with the last sentence >>>>>>> saying "... make no substantive changes ...". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can accept the statement with that change, but would feel better >>>>>>> with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We would like to call the community's attention to the current status >>>>>>>> of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, or URS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As a method to protect brand owners and Internet users against clear >>>>>>>> and obvious instances of domain abuse, the URS was a carefully >>>>>>>> crafted community wide consensus. It involved many ICANN >>>>>>>> constituencies and hard-won compromises that we can both support and >>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recently, attempts have been made to re-open URS policy because of >>>>>>>> cost-related pushback from ICANN's first choices of service >>>>>>>> providers. Our communities are concerned that important protections >>>>>>>> to both users and brand owners could be negatively impacted in the >>>>>>>> name of cost cutting. We ask ICANN to make every effort necessary to >>>>>>>> seek providers capable of implementing the URS as it now exists, and >>>>>>>> demand it make no changes to the URS without the same level of >>>>>>>> cross-community support that led to the current consensus. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >>>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IP JUSTICE >>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD >>>> >>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Oct 20 22:59:04 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:59:04 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_ICANN_46_Beijing_=AD_Visa_Require?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ments?= References: Message-ID: <40C29504-5136-459D-801B-3B6A1F55BF80@ipjustice.org> FYI: Begin forwarded message: > From: ICANN Constituency Travel > Date: October 19, 2012 7:41:01 AM PDT > To: ICANN Constituency Travel > Cc: ICANN Constituency Travel > Subject: ICANN 46 Beijing Visa Requirements > > Dear Traveler, > > If you are planning on attending the ICANN 46 Beijing meeting from > 7-11 April 2013, please make sure to start planning for your > Chinese visa application (if applicable) immediately. > > For more information about China visa requirements, please visit: > http://beijing46.icann.org/ > > For ICANN Beijing Invitation Letter, please visit: http:// > www.icann.org/en/contact/invite-beijing46 > > Should you need a local host letter, please send an email to > zhouwenjiang at cnnic.cn, which a subject headline: "ICANN 46 Beijing > ? Local Host Letter Request" > > Attendees will need to provide the following information: > > Name (First, Middle, Last) as displayed on Passport: > Passport Number: > Nationality: > Date of Birth: > Country of Residence: > Work Organization: > Contact Number: > Email: > > When requesting a letter, attendee should use his/her professional > email address, which represents the work organization he/she has > indicated. > > The letter will be issued only if all the information requested has > been provided. > > Best wishes, > > Joseph de Jesus > Constituency Travel Coordinator > > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > email: constituency-travel at icann.org > > One World. One Internet. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 23 04:43:02 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:43:02 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings for next 3 months Message-ID: We've got dates for our NCSG Monthly meetings for the next 3 months. Each is the Tuesday pre-ceding the g-council meeting on Thursday. We can do a doodle poll to figure out the best time for the meetings. Either pick one time and stick to that for this term or try to rotate the time around a little. Let me know what you think. Thanks! 13 November 2012 18 December 2012 15 January 2013 Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Tue Oct 23 20:31:58 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:31:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings for next 3 months In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50869C4E0200005B00099A01@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Robin - how about a Doodle poll for those 3 days with the following possible times (PST, your time zone): 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 1 p.m., 2 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m.? With 2 Councilors now in AU/NZ, and among the rest of the PC, EC and more active members, one or two in Asia, several in Europe, a couple in Latin/South America, and the rest scattered around North America and elsewhere, those times will inconvenience some but not tragically so (I hope). Alternatively, to rotate, pick three of those times and stick each of 'em against the three dates ya got :) Hope this helps, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/22/2012 9:43 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings for next 3 months We've got dates for our NCSG Monthly meetings for the next 3 months. Each is the Tuesday pre-ceding the g-council meeting on Thursday. We can do a doodle poll to figure out the best time for the meetings. Either pick one time and stick to that for this term or try to rotate the time around a little. Let me know what you think. Thanks! 13 November 2012 18 December 2012 15 January 2013 Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Oct 24 04:27:48 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:27:48 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings for next 3 months In-Reply-To: <50869C4E0200005B00099A01@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50869C4E0200005B00099A01@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <16E20DCC-80A7-4C7A-B5C7-E930F7DACE44@ipjustice.org> Thanks for the good suggestion, Mary. Let's do both: Pick one time and stick to it for the next three meetings and then we can rotate to the next time for the next 3 meetings, etc. So we can have a set time for a period and then rotate that around for different regions. How about we start with 14:00 UTC for our initial meeting time on 13 November 2012? Thanks, Robin On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:31 AM, wrote: > Thanks, Robin - how about a Doodle poll for those 3 days with the > following possible times (PST, your time zone): 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 1 > p.m., 2 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m.? With 2 Councilors now in AU/NZ, and > among the rest of the PC, EC and more active members, one or two in > Asia, several in Europe, a couple in Latin/South America, and the > rest scattered around North America and elsewhere, those times will > inconvenience some but not tragically so (I hope). > > Alternatively, to rotate, pick three of those times and stick each > of 'em against the three dates ya got :) > > Hope this helps, > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > From: > Robin Gross > To: > NCSG-Policy > Date: > 10/22/2012 9:43 PM > Subject: > [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings for next 3 months > We've got dates for our NCSG Monthly meetings for the next 3 > months. Each is the Tuesday pre-ceding the g-council meeting on > Thursday. > > We can do a doodle poll to figure out the best time for the > meetings. Either pick one time and stick to that for this term or > try to rotate the time around a little. Let me know what you > think. Thanks! > > 13 November 2012 > 18 December 2012 > 15 January 2013 > > Best, > Robin > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Oct 24 22:18:45 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:18:45 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions Message-ID: Dear NCSG PC Members: We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto-take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and what due process protections require) So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. That IPC/ BC take what they get in the compromises of others and uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by the strongest army gets its way in the end. So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a response? Thanks, Robin The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to- pritz-17oct12-en Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency Presented: October 16, 2012 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Oct 25 00:05:15 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:05:15 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Robin. I can't make the suggested time tomorrow due to classes, so here are a few hasty thoughts: - when I read Steve's letter, I didn't have much of a problem with some of the points, e.g. 1, 2, 3 & 7. I was very curious about 4 - it is not clear what they are working on in this respect. We obviously take issue with 5, and I'm not sure what we think about 6. For point 8, it's an attempt to extend the "identical match" language in the TMCH process so we should oppose it, for that reason as well as the fact that it will be objectively difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is abusive. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/24/2012 3:18 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions Dear NCSG PC Members: We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto-take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and what due process protections require) So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. That IPC/BC take what they get in the compromises of others and uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by the strongest army gets its way in the end. So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a response? Thanks, Robin The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency Presented: October 16, 2012 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 25 02:21:02 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:21:02 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions In-Reply-To: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Appreciate your thoughts, Mary. We have a call set for 8:00 AM PST tomorrow (Thursday) to discuss this further. I hope you all will join in the call and / or post your views to this list so we can formulate a response to the IPC proposal to re-open the consensus provisions by this time next week. Call-in numbers: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm Passcode: NCSG Best, Robin On Oct 24, 2012, at 2:05 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Robin. I can't make the suggested time tomorrow due to > classes, so here are a few hasty thoughts: > > - when I read Steve's letter, I didn't have much of a problem with > some of the points, e.g. 1, 2, 3 & 7. I was very curious about 4 - > it is not clear what they are working on in this respect. We > obviously take issue with 5, and I'm not sure what we think about > 6. For point 8, it's an attempt to extend the "identical match" > language in the TMCH process so we should oppose it, for that > reason as well as the fact that it will be objectively difficult, > if not impossible, to determine what is abusive. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > From: > Robin Gross > To: > NCSG-Policy > Date: > 10/24/2012 3:18 PM > Subject: > [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus > positions > Dear NCSG PC Members: > > We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter > to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO > (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. > > ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger > demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto- > take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no > human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering > the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken > down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and > what due process protections require) > > So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous > pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to > match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. > That IPC/BC take what they get in the compromises of others and > uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were > part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is > only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a > last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all > members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN > policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by > the strongest army gets its way in the end. > > So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these > proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am > PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a > response? > > Thanks, > Robin > > The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to- > pritz-17oct12-en > > Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual > Property Constituency > Presented: October 16, 2012 > 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a > standardized process. > 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; > ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. > 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its > usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial > period. > 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second- > level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character > strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or > used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with > appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or > interest. > 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. > 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to > an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. > 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard > applications. > 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously > found to have been abusively registered or used. > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Oct 25 15:38:02 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:38:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TMCH etc. In-Reply-To: References: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <5088FA6A0200005B00099E5C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Robin and all, sorry again that I can't join the call this morning due to classes. I forgot to add that - per your response to Fadi - I would be more than happy to participate remotely for the upcoming Brussels meeting, so they should at least make that possible for those of us in the community who can't attend in person. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/24/2012 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions Appreciate your thoughts, Mary. We have a call set for 8:00 AM PST tomorrow (Thursday) to discuss this further. I hope you all will join in the call and / or post your views to this list so we can formulate a response to the IPC proposal to re-open the consensus provisions by this time next week. Call-in numbers: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm Passcode: NCSG Best, Robin On Oct 24, 2012, at 2:05 PM, wrote: Thanks, Robin. I can't make the suggested time tomorrow due to classes, so here are a few hasty thoughts: - when I read Steve's letter, I didn't have much of a problem with some of the points, e.g. 1, 2, 3 & 7. I was very curious about 4 - it is not clear what they are working on in this respect. We obviously take issue with 5, and I'm not sure what we think about 6. For point 8, it's an attempt to extend the "identical match" language in the TMCH process so we should oppose it, for that reason as well as the fact that it will be objectively difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is abusive. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy Date: 10/24/2012 3:18 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions Dear NCSG PC Members: We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto-take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and what due process protections require) So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. That IPC/BC take what they get in the compromises of others and uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by the strongest army gets its way in the end. So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a response? Thanks, Robin The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency Presented: October 16, 2012 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Oct 25 17:04:29 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:04:29 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TMCH etc. In-Reply-To: <5088FA6A0200005B00099E5C@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> <5088FA6A0200005B00099E5C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3685222B-2647-471D-B7D6-67018C3AD194@acm.org> Hi, Me too. I am fine with setting my alarm, making a cup of coffee and doing the middle of the night thing. In fact I find it somewhat convenient as it does not interfere with other work or daytime activities. Of course I might fall asleep listening, but better in my room that when at the table. avri On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:38, wrote: > Robin and all, sorry again that I can't join the call this morning due to classes. I forgot to add that - per your response to Fadi - I would be more than happy to participate remotely for the upcoming Brussels meeting, so they should at least make that possible for those of us in the community who can't attend in person. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > > > Professor of Law > > > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > > > Two White Street > > > Concord, NH 03301 > > > USA > > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > > Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > >>> > From: > Robin Gross > To: > NCSG-Policy > Date: > 10/24/2012 7:21 PM > Subject: > Re: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions > Appreciate your thoughts, Mary. > > We have a call set for 8:00 AM PST tomorrow (Thursday) to discuss this further. I hope you all will join in the call and / or post your views to this list so we can formulate a response to the IPC proposal to re-open the consensus provisions by this time next week. > > Call-in numbers: > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm > > Passcode: NCSG > > Best, > Robin > > > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 2:05 PM, wrote: > >> Thanks, Robin. I can't make the suggested time tomorrow due to classes, so here are a few hasty thoughts: >> >> - when I read Steve's letter, I didn't have much of a problem with some of the points, e.g. 1, 2, 3 & 7. I was very curious about 4 - it is not clear what they are working on in this respect. We obviously take issue with 5, and I'm not sure what we think about 6. For point 8, it's an attempt to extend the "identical match" language in the TMCH process so we should oppose it, for that reason as well as the fact that it will be objectively difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is abusive. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW >> Two White Street >> Concord, NH 03301 >> USA >> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 >> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php >> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >> >> >> >>> >> From: >> Robin Gross >> To: >> NCSG-Policy >> Date: >> 10/24/2012 3:18 PM >> Subject: >> [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions >> Dear NCSG PC Members: >> >> We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. >> >> ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto-take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and what due process protections require) >> >> So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. That IPC/BC take what they get in the compromises of others and uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by the strongest army gets its way in the end. >> >> So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a response? >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en >> >> Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency >> Presented: October 16, 2012 >> 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. >> 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. >> 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. >> 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. >> 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. >> 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. >> 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. >> 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Thu Oct 25 17:54:10 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:54:10 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] TMCH etc. References: <50881FCB0200005B00099DA9@smtp.law.unh.edu> <5088FA6A0200005B00099E5C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <3685222B-2647-471D-B7D6-67018C3AD194@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD505@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry I was unable to made the call today. Full schedule. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Do 25.10.2012 16:04 An: NCSG-Policy Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] TMCH etc. Hi, Me too. I am fine with setting my alarm, making a cup of coffee and doing the middle of the night thing. In fact I find it somewhat convenient as it does not interfere with other work or daytime activities. Of course I might fall asleep listening, but better in my room that when at the table. avri On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:38, wrote: > Robin and all, sorry again that I can't join the call this morning due to classes. I forgot to add that - per your response to Fadi - I would be more than happy to participate remotely for the upcoming Brussels meeting, so they should at least make that possible for those of us in the community who can't attend in person. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > > > Professor of Law > > > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > > > Two White Street > > > Concord, NH 03301 > > > USA > > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > > Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > >>> > From: > Robin Gross > To: > NCSG-Policy > Date: > 10/24/2012 7:21 PM > Subject: > Re: [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions > Appreciate your thoughts, Mary. > > We have a call set for 8:00 AM PST tomorrow (Thursday) to discuss this further. I hope you all will join in the call and / or post your views to this list so we can formulate a response to the IPC proposal to re-open the consensus provisions by this time next week. > > Call-in numbers: > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm > > Passcode: NCSG > > Best, > Robin > > > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 2:05 PM, wrote: > >> Thanks, Robin. I can't make the suggested time tomorrow due to classes, so here are a few hasty thoughts: >> >> - when I read Steve's letter, I didn't have much of a problem with some of the points, e.g. 1, 2, 3 & 7. I was very curious about 4 - it is not clear what they are working on in this respect. We obviously take issue with 5, and I'm not sure what we think about 6. For point 8, it's an attempt to extend the "identical match" language in the TMCH process so we should oppose it, for that reason as well as the fact that it will be objectively difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is abusive. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW >> Two White Street >> Concord, NH 03301 >> USA >> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 >> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php >> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >> >> >> >>> >> From: >> Robin Gross >> To: >> NCSG-Policy >> Date: >> 10/24/2012 3:18 PM >> Subject: >> [PC-NCSG] ncsg response to IPC/BC 8-pt demands to re-open consensus positions >> Dear NCSG PC Members: >> >> We should formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to ICANN to re-open the compromises agreed to by the entire GNSO (including the IPC and BC). Their 8 points are below. >> >> ADDITIONALLY, I understand that they will make new and bigger demands next week for changes in URS and TMC policy including auto-take-downs of domain names without any due process of law - no human actually looking at a domain or a complaint or considering the registrant's rights before the domain names will be taken down. This is a major change from what the URS currently says (and what due process protections require) >> >> So IPC and BC are working very hard right now and putting enormous pressure on ICANN to change the provisions in the guidebook to match their wish-list. This is so problematic on so many levels. That IPC/BC take what they get in the compromises of others and uses it as footholds to claw at more and more rights, which were part of the compromise in the first place. Right now, staff is only hearing the IPC and BC on these issues and is attempting a last minute coup to undue all of the hard fought compromises by all members of the community. This is exactly why it is hard to ICANN policy making seriously sometimes: Last minute end-run lobbying by the strongest army gets its way in the end. >> >> So I'd like to organize a call for tomorrow to discuss these proposals and how we can respond. Can folks make a call at 8am PST tomorrow (Thursday) to review these proposals and formulate a response? >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> The current list of new demands from IPC & BC (8 points): >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en >> >> Consensus Position of Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency >> Presented: October 16, 2012 >> 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. >> 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. >> 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. >> 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. >> 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. >> 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. >> 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. >> 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Thu Oct 25 21:40:14 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:40:14 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: URGENT change to conference ID - possible to set up telephone bridge for tomorrow - Thursday 25 October at 8:00 PST? References: Message-ID: <8A2FBD23-EF60-4E33-91DC-14FC41EADEC6@ipjustice.org> Sorry for the mix-up on today's call. Turns out didn't schedule it to an email glitch. I'll reschedule it for Monday. Can folks make a call at 8am PST on Monday the 29th? Thanks! Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Gisella Gruber > Date: October 25, 2012 8:13:20 AM PDT > To: Robin Gross , Glen de Saint G?ry > Cc: Julia Charvolen , "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: URGENT change to conference ID - possible to set up telephone bridge for tomorrow - Thursday 25 October at 8:00 PST? > > Dear Robin, > > This is my fault as I now see that with the email issues I have had, it has not gone through. It got stuck in my outbox. > > Please as an emergency fall back use the following ADIGO bridge: > > Dial-in numbers: > > US toll free 1 800 550 6865 > > Other numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann > > > > > > > Conference ID 1638 > > We will retrieve the recording for you and send you a transcript. > > My sincere apolgoies > > Kind regards, > Gisella > From: Robin Gross > Date: Thursday, 25 October 2012 11:07 > To: Glen De Saint Gery > Cc: Gisella Gruber , Julia Charvolen , GNSO Secretariats > Subject: Re: possible to set up telephone bridge for tomorrow - Thursday 25 October at 8:00 PST? > > The conference center says there is no call set up. > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote: > >> Hi Robin, >> >> Sure, use all the usual details, telephone numbers and code NCSG, the call will be set up. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Glen >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >> Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2012 22:03 >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: possible to set up telephone bridge for tomorrow - Thursday 25 October at 8:00 PST? >> >> Dear Glen, >> >> I'm sorry for the short notice, but an issue has come up that warrants an immediate discussion. >> >> Is it possible for the NCSG Policy Committee to set-up a telephone bridge for tomorrow at 8am PST? >> >> We don't need any Adobe Connect or other extras, just the telephone bridge for a call. Although a transcript or mp3 of the call would be helpful also. >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 25 23:20:23 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:20:23 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice-Chair?` In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7FE0B71C-7E31-4277-9495-59B3EA6ED691@ipjustice.org> Dear Steve, Marilyn & Tony, Not having received any follow-up from CSG on this issue, I'll presume there are no additional emails that have been found relevant to this issue. Therefore I must again if CSG is prepared to honor the agreement to rotate NCPH vice-chair between the SG's - or if we have to submit the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman to look into and resolve? I will inform the ICANN Ombudsman of the dispute within the next 3 days, so please do speak-up if you have anything to say on the matter at this point. Thank you, Robin Gross, NCSG Chair On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to check back with CSG since you said you in Sunday's > meeting that would get back to us about the Vice-Chair issue. > Marilyn also mentioned that there were some emails she was looking > for and would forward on the topic. I haven't heard anything > further from you guys, so was hoping we could discuss this matter > today. > > Is CSG prepared to honor the rotation agreement and support Wendy > for Vice-Chair? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 25 23:58:27 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:58:27 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Vice-Chair?` References: Message-ID: <5C3CFE0A-EB30-49AB-BA2F-8F67EC928CB7@ipjustice.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Marilyn Cade " > Date: October 25, 2012 1:52:09 PM PDT > To: "Robin Gross " , "Steven Metalitz " > , "Tony Holmes " > Cc: "Avri Doria " , "william.drake at UZH.CH " > , "Milton Mueller " , "PC- > NCSG at ipjustice.org " , "Alain Berranger " > > Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` > > I think all of got consumed by ICANN work in the last days @ ICANN. > I left then for WITSA WCIT, and have only now returned. How about > we gather ourselves in the CSG in next few days and then resume our > dialogue w/in House? > > Steve/Tony and I have litterly not spoken since ICANN. Thanks for > reminder! It does need resolving. > > Maybe we can also discuss intercessional, as that also needs some > thought. > > M > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:20:23 > To: ; ; > > Cc: ; ; ; NCSG at ipjustice.org> > Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` > > Dear Steve, Marilyn & Tony, > > > Not having received any follow-up from CSG on this issue, I'll > presume there are no additional emails that have been found > relevant to this issue. > > > Therefore I must again if CSG is prepared to honor the agreement to > rotate NCPH vice-chair between the SG's - or if we have to submit > the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman to look into and resolve? > > > I will inform the ICANN Ombudsman of the dispute within the next 3 > days, so please do speak-up if you have anything to say on the > matter at this point. > > > Thank you, > Robin Gross, NCSG Chair > > > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Hi, > > > I wanted to check back with CSG since you said you in Sunday's > meeting that would get back to us about the Vice-Chair issue. > Marilyn also mentioned that there were some emails she was looking > for and would forward on the topic. I haven't heard anything > further from you guys, so was hoping we could discuss this matter > today. > > > Is CSG prepared to honor the rotation agreement and support Wendy > for Vice-Chair? > > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Oct 26 01:02:24 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:02:24 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Vice-Chair?` In-Reply-To: <5C3CFE0A-EB30-49AB-BA2F-8F67EC928CB7@ipjustice.org> References: <5C3CFE0A-EB30-49AB-BA2F-8F67EC928CB7@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <3DEDF782-48F7-4C5A-80A4-D9540BF039A3@acm.org> Hi, This seems inappropriate. Why wait 3 months? She is just stalling. Plus we don't really know that an intercessional will be held and who will be invited. NTAG, e.g is arguing for a intercessional of GAC and Applicants. How many intercessionals are scheduled. Are any actually scheduled yet? avri On 25 Oct 2012, at 16:58, Robin Gross wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Marilyn Cade " >> Date: October 25, 2012 1:52:09 PM PDT >> To: "Robin Gross " , "Steven Metalitz " , "Tony Holmes " >> Cc: "Avri Doria " , "william.drake at UZH.CH " , "Milton Mueller " , "PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org " , "Alain Berranger " >> Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` >> >> I think all of got consumed by ICANN work in the last days @ ICANN. I left then for WITSA WCIT, and have only now returned. How about we gather ourselves in the CSG in next few days and then resume our dialogue w/in House? >> >> Steve/Tony and I have litterly not spoken since ICANN. Thanks for reminder! It does need resolving. >> >> Maybe we can also discuss intercessional, as that also needs some thought. >> >> M >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Gross >> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:20:23 >> To: ; ; >> Cc: ; ; ; >> Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` >> >> Dear Steve, Marilyn & Tony, >> >> >> Not having received any follow-up from CSG on this issue, I'll presume there are no additional emails that have been found relevant to this issue. >> >> >> Therefore I must again if CSG is prepared to honor the agreement to rotate NCPH vice-chair between the SG's - or if we have to submit the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman to look into and resolve? >> >> >> I will inform the ICANN Ombudsman of the dispute within the next 3 days, so please do speak-up if you have anything to say on the matter at this point. >> >> >> Thank you, >> Robin Gross, NCSG Chair >> >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> I wanted to check back with CSG since you said you in Sunday's meeting that would get back to us about the Vice-Chair issue. Marilyn also mentioned that there were some emails she was looking for and would forward on the topic. I haven't heard anything further from you guys, so was hoping we could discuss this matter today. >> >> >> Is CSG prepared to honor the rotation agreement and support Wendy for Vice-Chair? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Fri Oct 26 02:46:10 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:46:10 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NTAG letter on re-opening gnso-agreed policies Message-ID: <20F3B5B3-5A9F-4CB5-A29D-132EFF96B049@ipjustice.org> Dear NCSG-PC: We need to formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to re-open GNSO-agreed policies and we don't have much time to do it. Attached is the response from NTAG on the issue. Please let me know your thoughts. This morning's anticipated call didn't get scheduled by ICANN but let's try again for Monday morning at 8am PST. Thanks, Robin ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NTAG RPM Letter Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57481 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Oct 26 04:10:58 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:10:58 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Election of GNSO council vice chair References: <2645444A-0A5D-436F-A471-6DEE7C65D82B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Reminder of the NCSG agreement with CSG to rotate the vice-chair role between the SG's for two full rotations between the SG's. We've only had one rotation of the vice-chair seat between the SG's so far, so CSG will breach its agreement with us if it continues to refuse to accept our vice-chair candidate Wendy Seltzer. > Reminder of the deal with the CSG on vice-chair issue. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Robin Gross >> Date: October 25, 2011 2:48:48 AM PDT >> To: "Metalitz, Steven" >> Cc: Tony Holmes , Marilyn Cade >> >> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair >> >> Thank you for getting back to me, Steve. Since CSG would like >> to stick to the yearly rotation, we will support Wolf for VC, and >> then next year's VC will come from the NCSG, as we agreed. >> >> Thanks again, >> Robin >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >> >>> Hi Robin, >>> >>> Thanks for your note. We have considered this option but on >>> balance we would like to keep to the agreement struck last year. >>> Wolf is our CSG candidate and we think he should go through the >>> election process as agreed. We believe he will do a good job for >>> all parts of our non-contracted party house. I know he has >>> reached out to the non-commercial side and will continue to do >>> so. We also think Mary, who is clearly an asset to the entire >>> council, has much to contribute in other important roles. Thanks. >>> >>> Steve Metalitz >>> for the CSG Executive Committee >>> >>> >>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:21 AM >>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair >>> >>> Hello Steve, >>> >>> Thanks for the email. Given the dominance the contracted parties >>> have historically had in the GNSO, and the need for the NCPH to >>> help set the agenda in the GNSO, I'm sure you agree that it is >>> most important to both our SG's that we have a VC who will be an >>> effective advocate for the entire NCPH. Considering the >>> excellent job Mary has done for the entire NCPH in this last >>> year, would the CSG be willing to consider allowing her to stand >>> for a 2nd term VC? >>> >>> I should note that we would be equally willing to consider >>> supporting extending the term of a really good CSG councilor, in >>> a subsequent year. >>> >>> I think it is in both our SG's interest to have the best VC that >>> the NCPH can produce (from either SG), so I don't want us to get >>> too bogged down in CSG candidate v. NCSG candidate thinking. >>> Rather, let's think about what will best advance the interests of >>> the entire NCPH, and a 2nd-year VC, when we've got an excellent >>> advocate for both our SG's, will serve us both well (and the >>> entire GNSO Council). >>> >>> What do you think? Can CSG consider Mary for a 2nd term? Next >>> year we can return to the rotation and CSG can put forth a VC. >>> >>> Thank you again, >>> Robin >>> >>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Robin, >>>> At the time that our Non-Contracted Parties House last selected >>>> a vice Chair of the GNSO Council, the NCSG proposed, and the CSG >>>> agreed, that at the next election, the SG whose candidate did >>>> not prevail would have the preferential option to nominate a >>>> candidate for vice chair. That nominee would undergo a vote >>>> (nominated candidate v. none of above) and, if the candidate >>>> received 8 or more votes, would be elected. If not, then the >>>> same process as used last time would be followed (nominations >>>> from both SGs, one or more round of voting, etc.). Please see >>>> below e-mail chain setting forth this agreement. >>>> >>>> In accordance with this, on behalf of the CSG executive >>>> committee, let me confirm that we have nominated Wolf-Ulrich >>>> Knoben as Vice Chair. May I suggest that you work with Marilyn >>>> Cade or Tony Holmes, who are onsite in Dakar, to arrange either >>>> for a meeting place, or for an e-mail ballot administered by the >>>> GNSO secretariat, in order to conduct an election between Wolf >>>> and none of the above before the GNSO council meeting on Wednesday. >>>> >>>> Thanks, and please let me know if any questions. >>>> >>>> Steve Metalitz >>>> For CSG Executive Committee >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:42 AM >>>> To: Metalitz, Steven; Glen de Saint Gery >>>> Subject: Re: Council vice chair was RE: [] Updated GNSO Council >>>> agenda for 13 January >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Just confirming there was no objection in the NCSG Policy >>>> committee to the CSG caveat. >>>> >>>> Glen: Please proceed with the vote at your convenience. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> On 30 Dec 2010, at 10:03, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Steve, thanks for the reply. I do not expect there will be >>>> any problem accepting the CSG caveat, just want to give the NCSG >>>> Policy group a day to review it. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Glen, I think planning on sending out the ballots on Monday, >>>> or whenever works out for you after that, should be fine. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > I will get back to you both, should there be any issue. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks to you both and wishes for a great 2011. >>>> > >>>> > a. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 30 Dec 2010, at 09:35, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Avri, >>>> >> >>>> >> The process you propose below now has the support of all of >>>> CSG, with the caveat that we review the process after two >>>> iterations (i.e., before the election for the term beginning >>>> after the last ICANN meeting in 2012). >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> By copy to Glen, and subject to Avri's confirmation on behalf >>>> of NCSG, I ask her to distribute ballots to the 13 council >>>> representatives from the CSG, NCSG, and NCA (Olga), to choose >>>> between the following candidates for vice chair: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG) >>>> >> Mary Wong (NCSG) >>>> >> >>>> >> I believe 7 calendar days would be an adequate time frame for >>>> ballots to be returned to Glen. If either candidate gets 8 >>>> votes, then that candidate is the winner. If not, the leader >>>> runs against none of the above in a second round. So if we do >>>> not have vice chair in place by the time of the 1/13 council >>>> meeting, we will be well on our way to doing so. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks to all for patience as we worked this through. >>>> >> >>>> >> And best wishes to all for a happy new year! >>>> >> >>>> >> Steve >>>> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:22 PM >>>> >> To: Metalitz, Steven; Olga Cavalli >>>> >> Subject: Fwd: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi,, >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >> >>>> >>> 9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted >>>> Party House. >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi, >>>> >> >>>> >> Where are we at? >>>> >> >>>> >> I know we agreed that Olga serves interim, and I think that >>>> is great. >>>> >> >>>> >> Is there any feedback on the NCSG suggestion that we just >>>> elect following the general practice that was used for the Chair >>>> election? >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> I repeat it below. >>>> >> >>>> >> thanks >>>> >> a. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:15 PM >>>> >>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>>> >>> Cc: Marilyn Cade; Olga Cavalli; Holmes Tony >>>> >>> Subject: Re: update from the CSG side about progression toward >>>> >>> election process for V.Chair/House >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We certainly accept Olga remaining while we figure this out, >>>> which I >>>> >>> hope is soon, really soon. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Yes, our candidate is Mary. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I would like to counter propose. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We follow the GCOT defined process for the chair. it is, in >>>> >>> diplomatic speak, agreed language and would allow us to be >>>> done with it. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> That means >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 1 candidate from each SG >>>> >>> >>>> >>> a. need 8 votes to win >>>> >>> b. if no one gets 8, person in the lead runs against none of >>>> the >>>> >>> above >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - From now on, we alternate with the SG who did not pick the >>>> >>> successful candidate, picking the v-chair candidate. They >>>> can pick >>>> >>> the person who is currently in the v-chair (assuming they >>>> are doing >>>> >>> a good job, and are really neutral), someone from their >>>> group, or >>>> >>> the NCA (don't assume they would pick someone from the other >>>> group >>>> >>> who wasn't already v-chair but they could) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> This person would still have to endure a vote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - chosen candidate vs. none of the above >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Takes 8 to win. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I/we hate the idea of having to do this again, so I am >>>> hoping we can >>>> >>> find a way to just finalize this and move on. especially >>>> since we >>>> >>> have Olga filling the spot while we discuss this, the hurry >>>> probably >>>> >>> isn't as great. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We accept that this does not prejudice the Board seat election, >>>> >>> though must say that the NCSG generally accepts staying with >>>> >>> accepted language, i.e. the same process as is already >>>> accepted for the chair. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> a. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Oct 26 04:43:47 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:43:47 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NTAG letter on re-opening gnso-agreed policies In-Reply-To: <20F3B5B3-5A9F-4CB5-A29D-132EFF96B049@ipjustice.org> References: <20F3B5B3-5A9F-4CB5-A29D-132EFF96B049@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <09426685-3BB5-4325-ADDF-9C3104F47CB8@acm.org> can we just endorse the NTAG letter? maybe in a letter that includes some of the stuff you wrote to Fadi? avri On 25 Oct 2012, at 19:46, Robin Gross wrote: > Dear NCSG-PC: > > We need to formulate a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter to re-open GNSO-agreed policies and we don't have much time to do it. > > Attached is the response from NTAG on the issue. > > Please let me know your thoughts. This morning's anticipated call didn't get scheduled by ICANN but let's try again for Monday morning at 8am PST. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Fri Oct 26 20:29:16 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:29:16 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Vice-Chair?` In-Reply-To: <3DEDF782-48F7-4C5A-80A4-D9540BF039A3@acm.org> References: <5C3CFE0A-EB30-49AB-BA2F-8F67EC928CB7@ipjustice.org> <3DEDF782-48F7-4C5A-80A4-D9540BF039A3@acm.org> Message-ID: <07B2F73D-71F4-4F83-A16C-F5E134CE8FA2@ipjustice.org> Yes I agree. And the intercessional is still in discussion, not officially scheduled, and has yet be given a clear purpose for happening. Different constituencies applied to ICANN for funding for different types of intercessional meetings with different purposes to meet their different needs. But ICANN just rolled-up all those requests into one and wants to hold a single meeting, but since different groups want to use the time differently, there isn't agreement on the purpose of this meeting either. CSG is pushing hard to hold the meeting and define it according their needs, and they usually get their way with staff, so I'm not sure an intercessional will be of much use to NCSG at this I haven't heard anything further from staff about it since at least before the Toronto meeting. Best, Robin On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > This seems inappropriate. Why wait 3 months? > > She is just stalling. > > Plus we don't really know that an intercessional will be held and > who will be invited. NTAG, e.g is arguing for a intercessional of > GAC and Applicants. How many intercessionals are scheduled. Are > any actually scheduled yet? > > > avri > > On 25 Oct 2012, at 16:58, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Marilyn Cade " >>> Date: October 25, 2012 1:52:09 PM PDT >>> To: "Robin Gross " , "Steven Metalitz " >>> , "Tony Holmes " >>> Cc: "Avri Doria " , "william.drake at UZH.CH " >>> , "Milton Mueller " , "PC- >>> NCSG at ipjustice.org " , "Alain Berranger " >>> >>> Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` >>> >>> I think all of got consumed by ICANN work in the last days @ >>> ICANN. I left then for WITSA WCIT, and have only now returned. >>> How about we gather ourselves in the CSG in next few days and >>> then resume our dialogue w/in House? >>> >>> Steve/Tony and I have litterly not spoken since ICANN. Thanks for >>> reminder! It does need resolving. >>> >>> Maybe we can also discuss intercessional, as that also needs some >>> thought. >>> >>> M >>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robin Gross >>> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:20:23 >>> To: ; ; >>> >>> Cc: ; ; ; >>> >>> Subject: Re: GNSO Vice-Chair?` >>> >>> Dear Steve, Marilyn & Tony, >>> >>> >>> Not having received any follow-up from CSG on this issue, I'll >>> presume there are no additional emails that have been found >>> relevant to this issue. >>> >>> >>> Therefore I must again if CSG is prepared to honor the agreement >>> to rotate NCPH vice-chair between the SG's - or if we have to >>> submit the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman to look into and resolve? >>> >>> >>> I will inform the ICANN Ombudsman of the dispute within the next >>> 3 days, so please do speak-up if you have anything to say on the >>> matter at this point. >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Robin Gross, NCSG Chair >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> I wanted to check back with CSG since you said you in Sunday's >>> meeting that would get back to us about the Vice-Chair issue. >>> Marilyn also mentioned that there were some emails she was >>> looking for and would forward on the topic. I haven't heard >>> anything further from you guys, so was hoping we could discuss >>> this matter today. >>> >>> >>> Is CSG prepared to honor the rotation agreement and support Wendy >>> for Vice-Chair? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Oct 26 22:11:04 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:11:04 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Meeting Invitation / NCSG- 29 October 2012 at 15:00 UTC References: Message-ID: Call on Monday to discuss a response to the IPC/BC 8-point demand letter. Thank you, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Gisella Gruber > Date: October 26, 2012 3:37:20 AM PDT > To: Robin Gross > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: Meeting Invitation / NCSG- 29 October 2012 at 15:00 UTC > > > Dear Robin, > > Please find the call details for the NCSG call on Monday, 29 > October 2012 at 15:00 UTC (08:00 PDT). > > Adobe Connect room: > > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ > Let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Gisella > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Participant passcode: NCSG > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Dial in numbers: > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > > ARGENTINA > 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 > 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 > 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 > 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL > 0800-7610651 > CHILE > 1230-020-2863 > CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-712-1670 > CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA > 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 > 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA > 800-011-1093 > FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 > 0-800-9-14610 > FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 > 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 > 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 > 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 > 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 > 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 > 800-962-856 > HUNGARY > 06-800-12755 > INDIA > 000-800-852-1268 > INDONESIA > 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 > 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL > 1-80-9216162 > ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 > 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 > 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 > 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA > 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO > 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 > 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 > 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA > 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND > 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA > 8-10-8002-0144011 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 > 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA > 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 > 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 > 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 > 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 > 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 > 00801-137-797 > THAILAND > 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 > 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 > 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY > 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 > 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers > using a mobile telephone. > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Oct 27 00:30:36 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:30:36 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] this email list for NCSG Policy Committee Message-ID: Dear All, Earlier this week I added the 3 new NCSG Policy Councilors (Maria, Magaly, David) to this list. I've also kept the 3 departing NCSG Policy Councilors (Rafik, Bill, Mary) on this list to aid in PC continuity over the coming months. So even though they are not NCSG Policy Councilors anymore, they are still on this list as observers. Please let me know if you'd like another arrangement. Thank you, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Oct 27 17:58:56 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:58:56 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Registrars Speak Out on IPC-BC Proposal to Re-Open RPM's for new tlds Message-ID: Great statement from the Registrar Stakeholder Group on the inappropriateness of new RPM's trumpeted by IPC-BC. Robin _________________ http://icannregistrars.org/calendar/announcements.php? utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign October 2012 - Post-Toronto Communication to ICANN CEO Dear Fadi: On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), thank you for giving us your time during a busy week in Toronto. We very much appreciated you explaining your priorities as you begin your work as CEO. It was clear to the group that you are focused on achieving your initiatives and we are committed to working with you and ICANN staff in a collaborative manner. The members of the RrSG are a diverse group and many have been active in the ICANN community for over a decade. Your focus on implementation and ensuring successful rollout of new policy was a breath of fresh air for all. This letter will provide perspective on your two highest priority objectives - the conclusion of the Registrar Accreditation (RAA) negotiations and the rollout of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). We also address the last-minute requests of the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies for additional rights protection mechanisms in new gTLDs. RAA For the past year, members of the RrSG and ICANN staff have been in negotiations over terms of a new RAA, with substantive progress made on all items. We have held numerous teleconferences, face to face meetings, and consultations with law enforcement, and feel the most recent draft document provided by the RrSG team provides for a much improved RAA for all parties and stakeholders. As an example of progress, the RrSG (after clarifying consultations with law enforcement) has accepted nearly all (11 ? of 12) requests made by authorities, including the complicated issues of enhanced data retention and Whois contact validation. As you're aware, an unresolved issue is a process by which a registrar can fulfill its obligations when RAA terms conflict with national law. The negotiating team has worked hard to gain members' acceptance of these new requirements, amid strong internal disagreement, and a belief that material changes to the registration process must be subject to the defined policy development process. Accordingly, we believe both parties should accept the current RrSG draft as the best path forward and conclude negotiations with a set of terms that are reasonable and avoid negative or unintended consequences for registrars and their customers. On that point, it's important to express that inclusion of revocation language that allows ICANN to unilaterally "sunset" the full RAA is inappropriate for a commercial agreement, and there was broad-based opposition to the inclusion of this language both in Toronto and previously in Prague. We request its removal, in its entirety, prior to the groups re-engaging on substantive negotiations on the remaining outstanding issues. We are all eager to conclude the new RAA and are hopeful your direct involvement in the discussions will expedite a positive outcome. TMCH One of the critical elements of the new gTLD program is the successful launch of the TMCH, so it was encouraging to see you actively involved in moving this forward during our time in Toronto. RrSG members have been active in the development of the "Community" model currently being discussed, and we (majority of members) support the adoption of this model by ICANN and the TMCH provider. As registrars interact directly with consumers during domain registration, we have a vested interest in how the communication between the registries and the TMCH works. And because we have this relationship with our customers, registrars will provide end-user support for the TMCH system and program. Additional RPMs We also understand various parties are advocating for the inclusion of additional Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), in excess of what is currently in the Guidebook. We are extremely concerned about this development at such a late stage in the program. The community spent years developing and building consensus for the current set of new RPMs for new gTLDs, and these will represent a significant increase to what currently exist in today's gTLDs. Any effort to revisit the discussion of RPMs - particularly outside policy development processes meant to provide predictability to contracted parties should be done after the gTLD program (with its agreed-upon RPMs) has been implemented and the effectiveness of the new RPMs can be evaluated. Additionally, we believe the additional RPMs circulated in Toronto represent a change to the policy and not the implementation of the TMCH. In our conversations with you, there was a clear distinction in your mind between the two and we would certainly agree with your assessment that policy and implementation be considered separately. The Policy Development Process exists to tackle community-wide issues by assembling a group of people from different stakeholder groups who can come together and work to resolve or lessen problems. Policy changes should not be pursued by a single interest group working directly with ICANN Staff. Doing so would in fact jeopardize, if not outright ignore, the significant implementation issues involved. Based on the RPMs in the Guidebook, registrars and registry operators have created product and business plans around those mechanisms, and to change those at this late date would have a significant impact on those plans. Moving forward with a change to the RPMs could further negatively impact reliance on the ICANN policy development process. Again, we want to commend you for the way in which you have entered the ICANN community and your eagerness to move the organization forward. We stand ready to collaborate with you in these efforts. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us at any time for our thoughts or perspectives. Regards, Matt Serlin Chair, Registrar Stakeholder Group -------------- IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Sun Oct 28 11:55:06 2012 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:55:06 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] this email list for NCSG Policy Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Robin, Sounds great, thanks. Maria On 26 October 2012 22:30, Robin Gross wrote: > Dear All, > > Earlier this week I added the 3 new NCSG Policy Councilors (Maria, Magaly, > David) to this list. > > I've also kept the 3 departing NCSG Policy Councilors (Rafik, Bill, Mary) > on this list to aid in PC continuity over the coming months. So even > though they are not NCSG Policy Councilors anymore, they are still on this > list as observers. > > Please let me know if you'd like another arrangement. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Oct 29 03:41:15 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:41:15 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?**_Reminder=3A_NCSG_Policy_Committee_M?= =?windows-1252?q?eeting_-_29_October_2012___=96__=2815=3A00_-_16=3A00_UTC?= =?windows-1252?q?=29?= Message-ID: ** Reminder: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - 29 October 2012 ? (15:00 - 16:00 UTC) Discussion Agenda: 1. Response to IPC-BC demand letter for greater rights in new gtlds 2. Preparation for upcoming RPM discussions Related Documents: * IPC-BC Demand Letter * NTAG Response * Registrar Stakeholder Group Response Telephone Bridge Dial-In Numbers & Passcode "NCSG": http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm Remote Participation via Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Mon Oct 29 18:36:09 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:36:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?**_Reminder=3A_NCSG_Policy_Committee_Meeting_?= =?utf-8?q?-_29_October_2012_=E2=80=93_=2815=3A00_-_16=3A00_UTC=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Robin, Unfortunately, I have a conflicting meeting today and cannot make this call. However, I wanted to express my support for the position(s) that have been expressed to Fadi, including the importance of respecting consensus policy w/r/t new gTLDs and not reopening discussion at the insistance of a special interest group. Thanks, Brenden On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > *** Reminder: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - 29 October 2012 ? > (15:00 - 16:00 UTC)* > > *Discussion Agenda:* > 1. Response to IPC-BC demand letter for greater rights in new gtlds > 2. Preparation for upcoming RPM discussions > > *Related Documents:* > * IPC-BC Demand Letter > * NTAG Response > * Registrar Stakeholder Group Response > > Telephone Bridge Dial-In Numbers & Passcode "NCSG": > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm > > Remote Participation via Adobe Connect: > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 30 03:35:13 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:35:13 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft of statement on additional RPM's for new tlds Message-ID: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> Dear All, Please see the attached draft statement on the IPC-BC proposals for additional RPMs for new gtlds - based on our call this morning. Please let me know if you have any feedback on it and suggestions for improvement of it. We don't have much time however. It should be finalized and published on Tuesday to be relevant to the pending discussions on the matter. Thanks to everyone who joined the call this AM (and especially to Avri who operated the Adobe Connect room and Kathy who has been following this issue closely). Best, Robin ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Response-10-29-v1.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 94208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Tue Oct 30 13:48:27 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:48:27 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft of statement on additional RPM's for new tlds In-Reply-To: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> References: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Robin, Many thanks to you and everyone who participated in drafting this excellent response. I would only suggest the following tweak: Given the [imbalance] of interests at that meeting, a staff decision to instruct the GNSO to re-work policy in favor of the IPC-BC?s proposals would not withstand public scrutiny as it obviously prejudices [impacted stakeholders] who could not participate in that discussion. -- Brenden On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Dear All, > > Please see the attached draft statement on the IPC-BC proposals for > additional RPMs for new gtlds - based on our call this morning. > > Please let me know if you have any feedback on it and suggestions for > improvement of it. We don't have much time however. It should be finalized > and published on Tuesday to be relevant to the pending discussions on the > matter. > > Thanks to everyone who joined the call this AM (and especially to Avri who > operated the Adobe Connect room and Kathy who has been following this issue > closely). > > Best, > Robin > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Oct 30 13:48:38 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:48:38 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft of statement on additional RPM's for new tlds In-Reply-To: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> References: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <475A6BC3-A94D-4BF1-9801-5EA5E6E4FF88@acm.org> On 29 Oct 2012, at 21:35, Robin Gross wrote: > Good letter. avri From maria.farrell Tue Oct 30 17:53:44 2012 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:53:44 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft of statement on additional RPM's for new tlds In-Reply-To: <475A6BC3-A94D-4BF1-9801-5EA5E6E4FF88@acm.org> References: <0664044E-961D-479F-B544-62E818E32390@ipjustice.org> <475A6BC3-A94D-4BF1-9801-5EA5E6E4FF88@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Robin, This is great, thanks. Couple of points: 1 "Furthermore, just because there has been one instance of abuse with a trademark, does not mean that all subsequent uses of a trademarked word are abusive or prohibited by law. But that is the policy that IPC-BC proposes ICANN adopt." This point may be better made in a separate para just below and not as part of the bulleted list on p.2 of ways the measures go beyond copyright law. 2 "The IPC-BC proposal would create a chilling effect by giving trademark holders the right to intimidate registrants in perpetuity despite the community consensus that the TMCH pertain to a limited time period." This point could use a little elaboration to remind people what it's about, something like: *"By changing a finite period for action into an indefinite one,*" the IPC-BC proposal would create a chilling effect by giving trademark holders the right to intimidate registrants in perpetuity despite the community consensus that the TMCH pertain to a limited time period. Or something like that, that makes sense in lawyerly terms. 3 To sweeten the pill a little, I suggest adding *"While we greatly appreciate the efforts of the CEO to reach out to us and accommodate NCSG participation,* we remind ICANN that the IPC-BC?s November 4-5 meeting with staff in Brussels is an inappropriate forum.." 4 Change unbalance (verb) in following sentence to imbalance (noun). In same sentence, make 'effected stakeholder' plural - stakeholders. 5 "NCSG welcomes the opportunity to meet with ICANN?s CEO and senior staff". Suggest addition of "NCSG welcomes the *invitation* and opportunity to meet with ICANN?s CEO and senior staff". 6 Finally, how about a bulleted list at the very beginning of the doc that summarises our key points? Executive Summary - NCSG is concerned by the convening of a last-minute, exclusive and unbalanced meeting with ICANN senior staff by two GNSO constituencies to discuss a new Rights Protection Mechanisms proposal that circumvents the multi-stakeholder policy development process. - This meeting is billed as a session on technical implementation, but deals with substantive policy issues and a new and one-sided proposal regarding issues that have already been addressed by the community process. - The proposal under discussion does not reflect the hard-won balance or limitations found in the current consensus policy, or in trademark law. - The proposal removes matters from the negotiated RAA and registry agreements into a vague 'backdoor process', and binds ICANN to unlimited compliance obligations. It would drive up end-user costs and stifle market innovation. - Both the substance of discussion and the manner of convening this meeting undermine our shared desires to create a truly multi-equal stakeholder process that honours ICANN's commitment to transparency and accountability. Or something... Thanks a million, Robin, for doing all the drafting. All the best, Maria On 30 October 2012 11:48, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2012, at 21:35, Robin Gross wrote: > > > > > > Good letter. > > avri > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Oct 31 03:53:51 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53:51 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft of statement on RPMs and new tlds Message-ID: <1C6D9EBF-29B1-409C-A33B-95D1A8F57F47@ipjustice.org> Dear All: Thanks for the comments and suggestions on the previous draft statement - very helpful! Attached is a revised draft that includes the edits suggested so far. Also, since it seems the Brussels mtg is developing into a LA meeting on the 15th, that part of the draft is still pending confirmation from Fadi as to what is going on. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for edits at your earliest opportunity. Thanks very much! Best, Robin ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Response-10-29-v2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Oct 31 21:24:48 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:24:48 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> Unless any PC members object, I'd like to add Kathy Kleiman to the PC list for the next two weeks to work with us on the TMC issues and prepare for those discussions. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Kathryn Kleiman > Date: October 31, 2012 12:16:19 PM PDT > To: Robin Gross > Subject: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > Dear Robin, > Could you kindly pass the email below to the NCSG-Policy Committee? > Tx you! > Kathy > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------- > > Hi All, > In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting with in Brussels I have two > questions and two requests: > > Questions > 1) Can anyone who attended meetings in Toronto about the > Trademark Clearinghouse please share any information that you heard > of interest/concern to NCSG? I would appreciate it! > 2) Can anyone share the time of this meeting with me? The > meeting runs 9am-5pm Brussels time, Thurs + Friday, and right now I > am the only participant from NCSG. I am attending by > teleconference. I have some other work I must do, but hate to leave > this meeting without an NCSG participant. Can anyone share the time > with me? > > Requests > 1) As you know, the policy section has been segmented out of > this meeting and placed in a separate one to take place on 11/15 ? > in a meeting to take place in LA or DC. I think we should have at > least two reps. I have volunteered to be one of them. Who else > could join us and help represent our strongly-held views? > > 2) I have asked Robin if I might be added to the NCSG-Policy > list for the next few days so I can share updates and ask questions > in realtime. > > Best, > Kathy > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______ > ? > Kathy Kleiman > Internet Counsel > 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 > Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 > * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Mary.Wong Wed Oct 31 22:24:42 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:24:42 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy In-Reply-To: <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> $(UHi Kathy and welcome! I can share the remote participation time this week, on Friday at least for part of the time. I can't do Thursdays as I teach and this week have 3 meetings back to back in the afternoon. For the meeting on 11/15 I can do the afternoon (after 1 p.m. EST). As for TMCH updates - I attended the Toronto (and for that matter Prague) presentation sessions. I don't know that I know more than you already do - basically ICANN is sticking with Deloitte/IBM, who although they have made substantial progress with details of the implementation since Prague still don't seem to be quite there. The alternate model that Neustar and ARI are pushing is interesting, and does reduce costs for the registries, but I don't think is well-understood by everyone who was there. There's a huge gulf of knowledge between the TM lawyers who have been on the scene since the TMCH idea first came up, and the new ones who don't have anywhere that kind of background and context. There's also the problem that some TM lawyers don't understand the technical issues, or even how PKI works (which is part of the Neustar/ARI model). Fadi already had a meeting with some of these folks - registries, applicants, TM owners - on Thursday morning in Toronto; the Brussels meeting is I think a follow up on that which is supposed to hammer out specific details about how the TMCH should work. TM owners continue to be worried about access to the data they will be putting into the TMCH, and how to secure it. Some - not all - want to re-open the whole "identical match" issue for the TM Claims Service (which I'm rather pleased to note was something I drafted when I was on the IRT and stuck to despite challenges dating from those discussions - and it's stayed that way through the STI process and post-hoc ICANN tinkering.) Hope this helps, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: NCSG-Policy CC: Kathryn Kleiman Date: 10/31/2012 3:25 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy Unless any PC members object, I'd like to add Kathy Kleiman to the PC list for the next two weeks to work with us on the TMC issues and prepare for those discussions. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Kathryn Kleiman Date: October 31, 2012 12:16:19 PM PDT To: Robin Gross Subject: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy Dear Robin, Could you kindly pass the email below to the NCSG-Policy Committee? Tx you! Kathy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi All, In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting with in Brussels I have two questions and two requests: Questions 1) Can anyone who attended meetings in Toronto about the Trademark Clearinghouse please share any information that you heard of interest/concern to NCSG? I would appreciate it! 2) Can anyone share the time of this meeting with me? The meeting runs 9am-5pm Brussels time, Thurs + Friday, and right now I am the only participant from NCSG. I am attending by teleconference. I have some other work I must do, but hate to leave this meeting without an NCSG participant. Can anyone share the time with me? Requests 1) As you know, the policy section has been segmented out of this meeting and placed in a separate one to take place on 11/15 ? in a meeting to take place in LA or DC. I think we should have at least two reps. I have volunteered to be one of them. Who else could join us and help represent our strongly-held views? 2) I have asked Robin if I might be added to the NCSG-Policy list for the next few days so I can share updates and ask questions in realtime. Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman at fhhlaw.com ( mailto:jazzo at fhhlaw.com ) | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kleiman Wed Oct 31 23:16:56 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:16:56 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy In-Reply-To: <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490331F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> This helps a lot! Tx so much, Mary!!! And regards to All, Kathy From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:25 PM To: NCSG-Policy; Robin Gross Cc: Kathryn Kleiman Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy Hi Kathy and welcome! I can share the remote participation time this week, on Friday at least for part of the time. I can't do Thursdays as I teach and this week have 3 meetings back to back in the afternoon. For the meeting on 11/15 I can do the afternoon (after 1 p.m. EST). As for TMCH updates - I attended the Toronto (and for that matter Prague) presentation sessions. I don't know that I know more than you already do - basically ICANN is sticking with Deloitte/IBM, who although they have made substantial progress with details of the implementation since Prague still don't seem to be quite there. The alternate model that Neustar and ARI are pushing is interesting, and does reduce costs for the registries, but I don't think is well-understood by everyone who was there. There's a huge gulf of knowledge between the TM lawyers who have been on the scene since the TMCH idea first came up, and the new ones who don't have anywhere that kind of background and context. There's also the problem that some TM lawyers don't understand the technical issues, or even how PKI works (which is part of the Neustar/ARI model). Fadi already had a meeting with some of these folks - registries, applicants, TM owners - on Thursday morning in Toronto; the Brussels meeting is I think a follow up on that which is supposed to hammer out specific details about how the TMCH should work. TM owners continue to be worried about access to the data they will be putting into the TMCH, and how to secure it. Some - not all - want to re-open the whole "identical match" issue for the TM Claims Service (which I'm rather pleased to note was something I drafted when I was on the IRT and stuck to despite challenges dating from those discussions - and it's stayed that way through the STI process and post-hoc ICANN tinkering.) Hope this helps, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross > To: NCSG-Policy > CC: Kathryn Kleiman > Date: 10/31/2012 3:25 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy Unless any PC members object, I'd like to add Kathy Kleiman to the PC list for the next two weeks to work with us on the TMC issues and prepare for those discussions. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Kathryn Kleiman > Date: October 31, 2012 12:16:19 PM PDT To: Robin Gross > Subject: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy Dear Robin, Could you kindly pass the email below to the NCSG-Policy Committee? Tx you! Kathy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi All, In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting with in Brussels I have two questions and two requests: Questions 1) Can anyone who attended meetings in Toronto about the Trademark Clearinghouse please share any information that you heard of interest/concern to NCSG? I would appreciate it! 2) Can anyone share the time of this meeting with me? The meeting runs 9am-5pm Brussels time, Thurs + Friday, and right now I am the only participant from NCSG. I am attending by teleconference. I have some other work I must do, but hate to leave this meeting without an NCSG participant. Can anyone share the time with me? Requests 1) As you know, the policy section has been segmented out of this meeting and placed in a separate one to take place on 11/15 ? in a meeting to take place in LA or DC. I think we should have at least two reps. I have volunteered to be one of them. Who else could join us and help represent our strongly-held views? 2) I have asked Robin if I might be added to the NCSG-Policy list for the next few days so I can share updates and ask questions in realtime. Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ [cid:image001.png at 01CDB78B.8699B590] Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: